Our new adversary: the Religious Right

[Baba Louie]

Two abominable sins that are in the forefront of this nation today are homosexuality and abortion. These are clearly wrong, and must be corrected if we are to continue long as a nation that we know. They are a cancer in this nation. Those were the major issues to many of us.

Perhaps these two acts were sinful because they do not promote LIFE; LIFE being a GOOD Thing in the eyes of a church or a group of organized religious persons.

Too much religion, from either direction, is also grounds for misuse of power. Our form of government does require a moral society, one that acknowledges The/A Higher Power, that being the fountainhead from whence springs our inalienable rights.

I'd hold to the original seven as being bad for any society (or person)
Wrath, Avarice, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth, Pride, Lust... and our society is wracked with all of them, making abortion and homosexuality pale in their shadow.

Having said that, and being a religious heterosexual male who wants nothing to do with abortion (as in cause one to occur), I see nothing written into our Constitution that makes specific mention of sexual preferences or telling a woman what she can or cannot do with or to her body.

 

[wasrjoe]

I see nothing written into our Constitution that makes specific mention of sexual preferences or telling a woman what she can or cannot do with or to her body.

Gotta step in and correct a misunderstanding here real quick. I am not religious at all, but I am against abortion. I doubt that anyone who is against abortion is against it to "control a woman's body". Recognizing the core of the argument - the fact that we are defining what human life is, not what a woman "can do with her body" - is the only way we will ever reach an agreement on this. If doing so is possible at all...

 

[WR Olsen]

When the Democrats talk about the religious right they infer that anyone else is (including themselves) non-religious. On the face of it, that is a statement that is both demeaning and insulting.
The words are just tags and are meant to divide. There are those who believe in gay issues and RKBA and those who hold other opinions, just as there are those who believe in home schooling the answer.
Listen closely, think the issues over and decide what is best for your moral judgement and let the other guy have his opinion without taking it personally, that is what makes it possibleto live in this wonderfulcountry.

 

[JerryM]

[Having said that, and being a religious heterosexual male who wants nothing to do with abortion (as in cause one to occur), I see nothing written into our Constitution that makes specific mention of sexual preferences or telling a woman what she can or cannot do with or to her body.]

Would we not agree that we have the right to life? That applies to all, and especially the unborn who cannot defend or plead for themselves. The unborn child is not part of a woman's body, but is contained therein.

I guess that I would add that we tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies. For a far out example, go into the street and begin cutting off your fingers, and you will soon get arrested and put where you cannot do it. Take your body into the freeway and see if you can do as you please with your body.

Jerry

 

[Brian Dale]

JerryM,

The answer that we believed earlier was that only God, our Creator, has the wisdom and authority to establish absolute moral values. Those of us on the religious right continue to believe that fact, and to govern our lives by those values.

Are you using the the Editorial "we," there? It reads as if it means, "here's what the Founding Fathers and I decided in 1789 ... and here's what the Founding Fathers and I know is the right course of action now." By contrast, some of the Founding Fathers wrote,

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
- Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution

"For in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."
- Alexander Hamilton
{Though the people who were at Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade might disagree with him on this - H. Bob}

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . ."
- From "The Treaty with Tripoli," approved by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
- President James Madison (principal author of the First Amendment)

You also wrote,

We do not try to be police who try to determine if someone is sinning in some way. If that were true none of us could stand. We might not agree on what might be sinful. However, there are some sins that the Bible is so clear on that one can only misunderstand if he is determined to misunderstand or does not care.

Where I come from, the police have the authority to deal with crime, not with sin. The Bible is quite clear, except where it isn't: please refer to 1,970 years of Councils; schisms; Bulls; trials and executions for heresy, apostasy and witchcraft; excommunications; and overthrown European governments. However, the Bible is not a United States government document.

Two abominable sins that are in the forefront of this nation today are homosexuality and abortion. These are clearly wrong, and must be corrected if we are to continue long as a nation that we know. They are a cancer in this nation.

I searched the Constitution for the word, "sin." It isn't there. Furthermore, Jewish law requires abortion in some cases. How does this fit with the "Judeo/Christian ethic" your post alludes to?

We want a nation in which our children and future generations can grow up and follow the moral standards which make the nation safer, and more compassionate.

And are you willing to use government power to produce it by force? Government power has no other route to follow. That way lies madness, with terror, destruction and bloodshed. It's been tried.

In addition: what WR Olsen wrote.

 

[Gewehr98]

Jerry M, nice try.

I can see where this is going, though. You can save the prosetilyzation for a forum that condones it, and for somebody who really gives a rat's a$$ about your own particular version of The Spoken Word.

Not that I don't love a good debate on the subject, and I am *slightly* familiar with the concept. I'm the only one in my seminary class who didn't continue past their vicar year to take a calling as a pastor of a congregation. You might say I lost faith, not unlike the fellow in The Prophecy. The hypocrisy of the church, as seen from the behind the curtains, made me walk away and choose a different path. I've not regretted it. (Envision Jerry Falwell and Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker on a larger scale, but you're immersed in it 24/7, without benefit of Jessica Hahn to keep you warm at night...) The Lutheran faith and it's values still reside, in somewhat diminished form, in my heart. However, two decades later, if I were granted an exclusive audience with either the Pope or the Dalai Lama, I'd gravitate towards the latter every single time. In fact, once I retire from my Air Force career, one of my goals is to meet the Dalai Lama in person. His brand of compassion and mercy for fellow human beings is an inspiration for all, be they religious, agnostic, or atheist. A little less vitriol and hatred, and a little more tolerance isn't going to kill anybody, now is it?

There you go, THR. Now you know the rest of the story.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Would we not agree that we have the right to life? That applies to all, and especially the unborn who cannot defend or plead for themselves. The unborn child is not part of a woman's body, but is contained therein.
Jerry

I guess the question then becomes: at what point does "life" begin? At birth? At conception? If at conception, does that mean that miscarriages should be buried with a full funeral?

Should there be an exemption for really bad cases? I can posit a case (very unlikely) where:

• The mother to be was raped...
• by her dad...
• and has an "unborn child" that's going to be born with a fatal birth defect...
• and the doctors say carrying to term has a likelihood of killing the mother.

Unlikely, but it's a recipe for a situation where no-one would argue against terminating the pregnancy, except those extremely radical folks who would see this as God's will, and therefure a righteous death sentence and tragedy for all involved.

These aren't terribly simple questions, and there's room for disagreement. Those on the "pro-choice" side of the debate are going to fight against any legislation that doesn't make room for the exceptions like the example above.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Maybe I'm *not* a member of the Religious Right after all. You could take the above, change just a few words, and it would literally jump at you screaming "Jihad!".

What nonsense.

The Christian conservatives' opposition the the forced acceptance of things such as; gay "marriage," the extremist gay rights agenda, and abortion: the world's most massive eugenics program, does not equate with suicide attacks and bombings.

However promotion of eugenics/abortion, gay rights, etc. does shout out "Nazi!" considering how the Nazis adopted their eugenics ideas from the American eugenics/pro-abortion movement, and considering how many prominant Nazis such as Hitler, Roehm, etc. were flamboyantly homosexual at some point in their lives.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I can see where this is going, though. You can save the prosetilyzation for a forum that condones it, and for somebody who really gives a rat's a$$ about your own particular version of The Spoken Word.

Not that I don't love a good debate on the subject,

Do you ever stop to go back and read what you have written? You should, it's very amusing.

 

[Gewehr98]

Glad I'm here to amuse you, Luke.

Now let it go, because it sounds conspicuously like you're attacking me vs. the argument, which is referred to here as an Ad Hominem attack. THR is not a forum for religion. I'd be more than happy to debate it offline, hence my saying what I did in my previous posting.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Now let it go. THR is not a forum for religion.

You're a moderator of this forum now? Since when?

I believe that discussion of religion are allowed up to a certain point on THR, so long as they don't involve; calls for killing all Muslims, whos religion is the right one, what's the correct interpertation of scripture, abortion and the like.

 

[Gewehr98]

Umm, Luke...

Have you read the content of this entire thread, including the stuff Jerry M's been posting? Or are you just sporting a chubby for me?

Lessee, there's scriptural interpretation, a whole bunch of abortion blather, and a goodly amount of preaching by Jerry M. That's just the kind of thing I go looking for in my favorite online gun forum. "My deity is better than your deity". Nice.

 

[Brian Dale]

Nobody will ever mistake ME for a moderator.

You're a moderator of this forum now? Since when?

I believe that discussion of religion are allowed up to a certain point on THR, so long as they don't involve; calls for killing all Muslims, whos religion is the right one, what's the correct interpertation of scripture, abortion and the like.

Whether that belief is correct or not, this thread has passed that point. If I've contributed to that, I apologize. In any case, I'm out.

 

[Moparmike]

I just don't get why the uber-religious think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights to relationships of free will that heterosexuals do. Are we going to make "biological law" a part of the United States Code now? Why are we going to infringe upon the rights of two people to do what they both consent to behind closed doors? Which religious sect dictates the proper laws? The Catholics only advise the missionary position in the bedroom. Do we want people breaking in our doors to enforce that? To make sure that condoms aren't being used? Are we going to legislate contraceptive companies out of existence? Where does it end? Why is the only difference in the two political parties whom and how they want to control? :banghead:


And are we going to tell a woman that was just raped that she cant have an abortion? Are we going to tell a woman that having the child she is bearing could kill her, and that she has to die?

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Have you read the content of this entire thread, including the stuff Jerry M's been posting? Or are you just sporting a chubby for me?

Don't get your hopes up on that ever happening. (Unless you're a female and single and Southern and armed).

Lessee, there's scriptural interpretation, a whole bunch of abortion blather, and a goodly amount of preaching by Jerry M. That's just the kind of thing I go looking for in my favorite online gun forum. "My deity is better than your deity". Nice.

And who is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read his posts?

 

[Standing Wolf]

To whom do the Republicans think they're beholden ?

Nobody. The Republicrat and Democan parties believe they own the nation.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I just don't get why the uber-religious think that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights to relationships of free will that heterosexuals do.

They do have an absolute right to their relationships. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Denial of a marriage license is not an infringement of their rights in any regard.

Are we going to make "biological law" a part of the United States Code now?

It already is with regard to issues like stem cells, polygamy, interfamily marriage, etc.

Why are we going to infringe upon the rights of two people to do what they both consent to behind closed doors? Which religious sect dictates the proper laws?

The religious-based laws, such as those against sodomy, have already been struck down.

The Catholics only advise the missionary position in the bedroom.

Myth No. 168-B about Catholic doctrine.

 

[Don Gwinn]

As has already been pointed out in this very thread, THR doesn't allow discussion of the morality of homosexuality, abortion, or the various religions.

Past experience has shown that such discussions can't help but devolve into flaming arguments, as seems imminent here.

PM any complaints to me, please.