Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:30 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Is it time for Republicans to leave the Christian platform? Back to Topics
BabeTruth

Champion Author
New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:15:10 PM

For years believers in Christianity have demonized the Democratic Party as “godless” because of their support for abortion rights and more recently same sex marriage.

The Republican Party has capitalized on this, billing itself as the party of the faithful and religious morality and attracting voters from the religious right.

But is this strategy now backfiring?

Is this alignment with far right Christianity helping or hurting the GOP?

American society is changing fast, and what was unthinkable no more than a decade ago is becoming the norm.

The Republicans are being led by the religious right on abortion continue to say they want to repeal Roe v Wade. But did they make any moves in that direction during the Bush years? It appears that maybe they saw the writing on the wall and realized that strong anti-abortion action would result in a loss of votes, not a gain.

Pressed by far right Christians, the Bush Republicans withdrew funding for stem-cell research but now the news is out that stem-cells may be able to cure HIV infection, a disease which affects more heterosexuals than homosexuals these days. Stem cell research bans were hurting people.

Many (but not all) Christians have long been against homosexuality and have tried to promote conversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality, but recently Exodus International, one of the main ministries claiming to convert gays has closed it's doors admitting that such conversion therapy doesn't work, that it's a scam.

They weren't the only ones who have failed in this idea that Christians use to support their claim that homosexuality is nothing more than a choice.

Now the SC has ruled against DOMA paving the way for same sex marriage, another of the main Christian planks making up the Republican platform which is going against the changing ideas of Americans.

Like any political party, some of the planks will resonate with people and others will not. People may vote based on all or just some parts of the platform which most agree with their own feelings. But the GOP is getting closer and closer to becoming a party representing just one point of view, and that one heavily influenced by religion, not what's best for the country politically.

Is aligning themselves too closely with Christian extremists costing the GOP votes? Did it win the last election for the Democrats?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,136
Points:2,989,595
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 11:02:11 AM

<<Now that gets me thinking...If the Earth is flat, how does the sun go around it?" Did they think it went to the horizon, then off the edge and back around the bottom of the Earth?>>

No, silly. It rides in a chariot across the sky, everyone knows that!
Profile Pic
Panda
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:22,895
Points:4,270,795
Joined:Feb 2002
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2013 11:48:26 AM

Early perceptions of the sun proposed by Zeitgeist:
"God's Sun"
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,803
Points:4,262,335
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2013 9:37:37 AM

"They also thought the Earth was flat and the sun went around it."

Now that gets me thinking...If the Earth is flat, how does the sun go around it?" Did they think it went to the horizon, then off the edge and back around the bottom of the Earth?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2013 9:09:13 AM

Babe Truth - "I've talked to some Muslims who think the same thing about Islam and say that Christians are the root of immorality."

tankerCA “So? Is that the basis of your argument? Then let me ask you, when was the last time a Christian detonated a backpack full of explosives on a sidewalk in America? Keep talking to those Muslims. They will tell you all about Christianity.”

If you have to take my statement out of context to make yours, then you didn't have a valid point in the first place.

YOU had said “We Christians ARE a 'fly in the ointment' since we believe in the Almighty Creator who ultimately will judge the living and the dead has given us moral absolutes.”

I was merely pointing out that Christianity isn't the only religion that has an identical belief and that as a consequence, your contention that it has anything to do with the fall of (the American?) empire is off base.

Nothing to do with Islamic extremists and terrorists at all. Or do you think that all Muslims are terrorists?

But thanks for letting us know you're some sort of “end-of-time” believer. It helps to put context into your thinking.

Babe Truth - "I've seen so much of “Christians” changing definitions of words to pervert their meaning that your argument rings hollow."

“Could you please cite some examples?”

Recently several have changed the meaning of “murder” to their own ends. Others have redefined “dogma” and “tolerance”. There lots of others.

Babe Truth - "Christians” say “no” to same sex marriage, absolutely."

“That's because Jesus Christ Himself defined *marriage* as the union of one man and one woman.”

Really? Could you please cite some examples?

“Psychiatrists have historically diagnosed homosexuality as aberrant behavior.”

Yes, back in the days when psychology was just guesswork based on suppositions. The study of psychiatry has learned a lot since then and become much more scientific and exacting.

“But in today's world, it is those who haven't changed their historical values...”

Clinging to old ways just because they're old doesn't really make sense. There used to be people who's historical beliefs included thinking that thunder and lightning was a manifestation of the god's displeasure with humanity. They also thought the Earth was flat and the sun went around it.

If something has been shown to be based on superstition or erroneous beliefs a wise person lets go of it.

“.. that have been defined as "homophobes".

Are you telling us that you DO “love homosexuals (thy neighbors) as you do yourself”?

Would you rather people who discriminate against homosexuals be called “gay bashers”?

“For all of the new leftist ideals, labels have been invented to hang around the necks of conservatives and Christians. If you want to stop illegal immigration, and document all of the illegals here, we have suddenly become "Xenophopes." When we cite all of the killing by Islam we're called Islamophobes.”

Just because something didn't have a name before doesn't mean it didn't exist. Do you mean to tell me that during the 1940's and into the 50's people didn't discriminate against Japanese? Do you think that there aren't Muslims in Iran who aren't “Christiaphobes”? Often words don't get coined until something is prevalent enough to need a label, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

“So when does concern for our American way of life become a fear?”

Since you got a misunderstanding about the suffix “phobe” means on the end of a word. It also denotes “hate”, “contempt” and “loathing” as well as “fear”.

“So what do you call atheists who are offended about a girl wearing a cross at work?”

Reading the entire article I see nothing about atheists being offended about wearing a cross to work.

In fact, the only reference to atheists at all was of a Catholic labelling those against her as “militant neo-atheists”, but nothing to support that they were militant, new or even atheists. Besides, if you're against labels such as “xenophobe” (which has been around for millenia), “Islamophobe” or “homophobe”, why aren't you also against “neo-atheist”? Or is that because you agree with that one so labelling is ok then?
Profile Pic
tankerCA
Champion Author Chico

Posts:2,873
Points:433,000
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jul 14, 2013 11:44:11 PM

Babe Truth - "I've talked to some Muslims who think the same thing about Islam and say that Christians are the root of immorality."

...So? Is that the basis of your argument? Then let me ask you, when was the last time a Christian detonated a backpack full of explosives on a sidewalk in America? Keep talking to those Muslims. They will tell you all about Christianity.

Babe Truth - "I've seen so much of “Christians” changing definitions of words to pervert their meaning that your argument rings hollow."

...Could you please cite some examples?

Babe Truth - "Christians” say “no” to same sex marriage, absolutely."

...That's because Jesus Christ Himself defined *marriage* as the union of one man and one woman.

Psychiatrists have historically diagnosed homosexuality as aberrant behavior. But in today's world, it is those who haven't changed their historical values that have been defined as "homophobes". For all of the new leftist ideals, labels have been invented to hang around the necks of conservatives and Christians. If you want to stop illegal immigration, and document all of the illegals here, we have suddenly become "Xenophopes." When we cite all of the killing by Islam we're called Islamophobes. So when does concern for our American way of life become a fear? So what do you call atheists who are offended about a girl wearing a cross at work?




Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 14, 2013 10:59:04 AM

I don;t thing the POTUS really has much say in the day to day running of blood banks Sneakers55.
Profile Pic
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:61,992
Points:2,671,320
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:55:01 AM

I wonder if the next thing to go under Obama will be the MSM (males that have sex with males) blood donation ban enforced by the FDA.

Only MSM donors are deferred indefinitely.

Our local blood bank, Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, feels that this restriction should go because the screening tests are so sensitive now.

Profile Pic
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:61,992
Points:2,671,320
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:32:37 AM

I have no trouble with the Republicans being the party of traditional marriage and abortion restrictions. But I would likely be a Democrat if their social policy agenda could not be summarized as "anything and everything goes."

Obamacare should have been single-payer (it's odd that the Republicans in the House say they want to "repeal and replace Obamacare" while being strangely silent about what they would do) and we certainly can stand to enact the Buffett Rule.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,295
Points:1,126,030
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 11:32:41 AM

NY slugger, you've made passing reference a couple times concerning the life of a mother. I'm not aware of any pro-life advocate who is uncompromising to the point to save the baby and let the mother die. Concerning abortions, this is the only example I see yet that would possibly fit the term of an "extremist". Most people are reasonable.

AFAIK, doctors never really needed Roe v. Wade if a life/death situation meant the baby must die to save the mother. Perhaps there has been a rare or "extreme" case, but I just don't remember any doctor going to prison for saving the life of the mother.

You also mentioned knowing a Muslim and what they think about Christians.

Muslims and the Muslim church are against abortions beyond 4 mos, and are especially against gay marriage. But if a Muslim isn't planning on bombing a public venue--and has a family and a job, has assimilated into society (as most of us are) they're usually referred to as "peace-loving moderates" (or something like that), people who just want to get along in our society (while adhering to their own religious beliefs).

But, if a Christian has similar beliefs as the Muslim concerning abortion or gay marriage, you seem to have no qualms labeling the Christian as a "religious extremist."

Same with your incessant references to Wesboro. Unless someone has gotten an eye poked out accidentally from one of their placards, they (so far) haven't been very militant. (They are tenacious, obnoxious, misguided, narrow-issue and all-- that I would agree.)

A Muslim won't be labeled a "religious extremist" unless they are planning on bombing and killing (actually, they're still usually considered a "moderate" all the way up until only after the bombing has occurred, but I digress).

But, put a placard in my hand that says something about saving the lives of unborn babies (or that I'm against a federal gay marriage law) and you'd seem all too comfortable and willing to brand me as a "religious extremist."

That is a double standard.

And when you talk of Christians being emboldened because they're unwilling to compromise their morals to match yours--I have witnessed that you're quite emboldened (and brazen) to be calling other people names while at the same time expressing righteous indignation that anyone would dare label you with a term you don't approve of.

Suffice it to say, I think your incessant use of the term "extremists" is over-played, over-the-top hyperbole. It is ridicule, and ridiculous. I think that hyping it up renders the opposite effect of what you're probably hoping for (except that you may, perhaps, be able to influence some lesser critical thinkers).

I still think you're preaching to the choir. So in effect, you're just beating up on folks with whom you don't agree and with whom you've already acknowledged aren't going to acquiesce to what you believe should be a compromise of their beliefs.

BabeTruth: "Why do you think I started this post as a counterpoint to “Is it time for Christians to leave the Democratic Party”? That's nothing more than an 'us vs them' thread."

I've partly answered that already, but one difference I see is my understanding about the inception of the Christian/Democrat Party thread. I believe it began in the Christian forum, and was moved here to the US Politics after the fact--after somebody complained that it should be here. Yes, there was an us vs. them element to that thread, but IF it began in the Christian thread, for Christians to discuss, by a Christian--no1doc--he was asking other Christians how could a Christian possibly stay with the Democratic Party with it's current platform. Context.

This thread on the other hand could be viewed as "Us vs. Them," easily. You're neither a Christian, nor a Republican, and discussing how the Republicans can survive Christian values could easily be seen as a thin cover for beating on your favorite punching bag--conservative Christians. This is a soap box for you to point out how unrelenting some Christians are in their faith--and that is tantamount to labeling them as "religious extremists" in today's supposedly enlightened society. That's what it looks like to me that you're selling here. And that's why I think this could be considered as an "Us vs. Them" thread. IMHO

You're all over the place with some of this stuff. (But your target is clear.) I'll post more responses to some of your other statements as I have time.

[Edited by: ministorage at 7/11/2013 11:41:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,062
Points:3,141,635
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 10:46:37 AM

I'm sure former Gov Mark Sanford of my state believed in the highest Christian morals of the Gop platform right up until the day he got caught cheating on his wife. Apparently the Gop electorate paid little attention to the Christian platform when they voted for an adulterer for congress. That's politics for you. The Christian right blew their credibility on Mark Sanford in my state.

What few morals I claim I would not impose on someone else. But that is not a problem for the Gop when writing their platform. I am straight but I refuse to tell someone else who they can love or marry. The thought of an abortion for a female close to me is terrible. But it is not me having a baby. Religion is a very personal thing between God and man, I would never make that choice for someone else. All that said makes it hard for me to be allied to the Gop in today's ultra conservative environment.

Call me old fashioned but the Gop needs to learn to Butt Out when it comes to Christian beliefs and politics.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 9:47:48 AM

Ok, you're right Zimcity. There are some Christians who will compromise. But there are definitely some Christians on this forum who define compromise as "do everything my way".
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,803
Points:4,262,335
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 9:32:54 AM

"It doesn't mean “give in and do everything the way that we say” as Christians want to use it."

I think you mean to say ...as some extremist Christians want to use it. We wouldn't want to lump ALL Christians in with those who are adamant about getting their way.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 8:52:49 AM

TankerCA “What of the "other side" who changes the definition of words to pervert their meaning - like marriage?”

I've seen so much of “Christians” changing definitions of words to pervert their meaning that your argument rings hollow. Even when shown the dictionary and the legal definitions these so-called Christians continue to pervert the meanings of words to promote their own agenda.

“Did they compromise?”

Nope. These people not only won't compromise but whenever they're proved wrong they pretend not to see it.

“What about abortion? Have abortionists compromised?”

I think there should be a compromise. Abortion should be allowed only in the first trimester except for very exceptional cases like the life of the woman. But anti-abortionists are the ones who refuse to compromise. They insist on absolute, 100% banning of all abortions regardless of reason, so you end up with situations like in Chile or Brazil or Ireland where children as young as 9 years old are forced to give birth to babies from incestuous abuse and women are made to risk death because they cannot get an abortion.

The ones who won't compromise are the anti-abortionists, don't kid yourself.

“Those who promote abortion and gay marriage have never compromised, not one iota, but continually push further and further to change the morays of society, even to post birth abortion (as our president, when a Senator, voted several times to approve post birth abortion).”

It would be easier to deal with if you wouldn't try to argue the two issues together. Since I already proposed an example of compromise on abortion above, I'll take your second one.. same sex marriage.

Again, where are “Christians” willing to compromise there? “Christians” say “no” to same sex marriage, absolutely. Yet gays and lesbians are willing to compromise on civil marriage which would not affect religion in the least and no church would ever be forced to perform a marriage ceremony. But again, it's “Christians” who are the ones who won't compromise. They want 100% no such thing as same sex marriage.

“Make no mistake, Christians have debated both - and the more that science is applied, the more we understand that life begins at conception, (as Christians have debated for decades) and now it has been confirmed that an unborn child experiences pain by 20 weeks, a time that many are killed in the womb.”

So limit abortions to less than 20 weeks. That's a compromise. Zero abortions ever, which is what you demand, is not a compromise, it's demanding everything your way.

Hmmmmm, I'm starting to see that maybe “compromise” is another one of those words that Christians redefine and pervert to their own purposes. It doesn't mean “give in and do everything the way that we say” as Christians want to use it.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 11, 2013 8:31:11 AM

TankerCA, I see a lot of Christians doing evil and calling it “good”. It's the actions of Christians that causes the greatest doubt as to the truth of Christianity.

“This is how it always goes just prior to the fall of an empire, and we are witnessing it in our time.”

Could you cite some examples from history please. Few come to mind.

“We Christians ARE a 'fly in the ointment' since we believe in the Almighty Creator who ultimately will judge the living and the dead has given us moral absolutes.”

I've talked to some Muslims who think the same thing about Islam and say that Christians are the root of immorality.

“Since we have determined nationally that we can make our own 'if it feels good do it' morality, God gives us that warning, and our nation is cursed.”

Wow, that sounds almost like what the Westboro Baptists say. I'm pretty sure they're evil.

“Of course God is out of sync with this generation. He has given us moral absolutes to live by and warned us that we would be cursed as a people if we abandoned those laws.”

Yes, he said to “love thy neighbor” and to “treat others as you would so be treated yourself”, and then Christians turn around and persecute gays and lesbians and try to prohibit them from being married.

“Look what's happening. We are buried in national and personal debt.”

How much did Christian Bush increase the debt?

“We've sacrificed freedom for convenience.”

And yet Christians so often support the increase of camera surveillance and photo radar.

“We are willing servants to those we elected (and their appointees) who levy burdens on the industrious to promote their personal agenda's.”

Do you mean those regulations (burdens) that stop industries from selling harmful drugs and from using dangerous and polluting practices so they can make more money?

“Obama's socialistic blueprint is designed to redistribute wealth, as the bumper sticker I saw read, "Socialism at work for those who don't".”

Anybody who think Obama is a socialist don't understand what a real socialist country is. "Socialist" has become just another epithet used by the right to denigrate people they disagree with.
Profile Pic
tankerCA
Champion Author Chico

Posts:2,873
Points:433,000
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 4:57:22 PM

Babe Truth - >>There should be acceptance, or at least compromise, if there are good points to the other side. But that's not happening and that's a hallmark of religious extremists. They don't compromise, they don't even want to hear the other side.<<...What of the "other side" who changes the definition of words to pervert their meaning - like marriage? Did they compromise? What about abortion? Have abortionists compromised? Those who promote abortion and gay marriage have never compromised, not one iota, but continually push further and further to change the morays of society, even to post birth abortion (as our president, when a Senator, voted several times to approve post birth abortion). Make no mistake, Christians have debated both - and the more that science is applied, the more we understand that life begins at conception, (as Christians have debated for decades) and now it has been confirmed that an unborn child experiences pain by 20 weeks, a time that many are killed in the womb.


[Edited by: tankerCA at 7/10/2013 4:57:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
tankerCA
Champion Author Chico

Posts:2,873
Points:433,000
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 4:41:13 PM

Babe Truth >>American society is changing fast, and what was unthinkable no more than a decade ago is becoming the norm.<<

The Bible says it this way, "Cursed are those who give the name of good to evil, and of evil to what is good: who make light dark, and dark light: who make bitter sweet, and sweet bitter!"

This is how it always goes just prior to the fall of an empire, and we are witnessing it in our time. No surprise here - We Christians ARE a 'fly in the ointment' since we believe in the Almighty Creator who ultimately will judge the living and the dead has given us moral absolutes. Since we have determined nationally that we can make our own 'if it feels good do it' morality, God gives us that warning, and our nation is cursed.

But Jesus said believers are salt and light to this dark world. One effect of salt is that it is a preservative. One way Christians can be that preservative is to vote - and I do.
Of course God is out of sync with this generation. He has given us moral absolutes to live by and warned us that we would be cursed as a people if we abandoned those laws. Look what's happening. We are buried in national and personal debt. We've sacrificed freedom for convenience. We are willing servants to those we elected (and their appointees) who levy burdens on the industrious to promote their personal agenda's. Obama's socialistic blueprint is designed to redistribute wealth, as the bumper sticker I saw read, "Socialism at work for those who don't".

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,987
Points:323,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 2:34:17 PM

"Is this alignment with far right Christianity helping or hurting the GOP?"

Does political Christianity help or hurt the purpose for which Christ came? Should the name of Christ be invoked for the very base purpose of gaining votes for a political party?




"the GOP is just short of being called the 'Party of God' it seems."

The very suggestion borders on blasphemy.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,162
Points:1,273,135
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 11:18:31 AM

"I don't see the OP as "trashing Christians" at all. I see it more as questioning whether the Republican Party's lip service to Christian planks in their platform is still working for them and whether they might focus on more important matters that will appeal to a wider voter base. "


Well as long as many christians are single issue voters; ie., anti-abortion, then yes, the Republican party believes that plank works for their platform and will keep exclusion going full steam ahead and not be concerned about appealing to a wider base.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 10:09:49 AM

Zimcity "I see it more as questioning whether the Republican Party's lip service to Christian planks in their platform is still working for them and whether they might focus on more important matters that will appeal to a wider voter base."

Exactly right on.

The GOP is catering so much to the religious issues that they're losing sight of the fiscal and social conservative issues that should be looked at.

Democrats are being dismissed as socialist atheists and the GOP is just short of being called the 'Party of God' it seems.

There are many things that are happening in Washington that both sides SHOULD be represented, but it's come down to nothing but doing the opposite of whatever the other side wants regardless of whether or not it's the right thing for the country. It's opposition for the sake of opposition, not opposition only to bad ideas.

There should be acceptance, or at least compromise, if there are good points to the other side. But that's not happening and that's a hallmark of religious extremists. They don't compromise, they don't even want to hear the other side.

I firmly believe in the founding fathers concept of separation of church and state and I think the reasons for that are excellent. Even if I believe in a religion I don't feel I have right to put the beliefs of that religion into law that everybody has to follow.

If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then marry somebody of the opposite gender. But don't deny others their choice in that. I'm personally quite happy being with a member of the opposite sex, but I don't feel it's my place to force my orientation upon others.

Same with abortions. If you don't want one, don't have one. If I was a woman I wouldn't have an abortion. But until I walked a mile in her shoes, I'm not in a position to make a decision for somebody else.

Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 9:59:00 AM

ministorage “It's a good thing my moral values don't change because acceptance of this holocaust "issue" as you call it might be getting more palatable to more voters.”

It's not a difference of morals. I don't approve of killing innocent people either. It's a difference of definition.

Anti-abortionists claim everything is 'a baby' from the moment the sperm unites with the ovum. Pro-choicers don't consider a baby until it's born. Simple as that.

Also, having worked in a hospital before RvW, I saw the results of a few backyard abortions and the women dying slowly in great agony. While I don't personally approve of abortion, I understand that if a woman is desperate enough she will risk that to get rid of her pregnancy regardless of the law and so if it's going to be done anyway then it's better she be able to do it safely. Better than losing both of them.

BT: "Regardless of one's own personal opinion on a matter, there comes a time when it's best to drop a battle that's costing you more than it's gaining."

“IF the goal was for the Republican party look like the Democratic Party, I'd agree with you.”

The GOP will not look like the Democratic Party regardless of whether or not they oppose abortion or same sex marriage. The difference is much more profound than just those two (separate but both religious) issues.

“And if I didn't believe abortion is costing this country more than we're gaining. I will vote for what I believe is right--regardless of whether it's popular.”

That's what freedom is all about. But are you a single issue voter?

“And if the GOP wants to drop it in their platform, I was looking for a political party before I signed up for this one.”

As long as we have an essentially only two party system there really isn't a third viable choice.

BT quoting me: “In your OP you lumped the two together, beginning with your very first sentence. You argue them together and therefore you imply they should be argued together.”

BT: "I'm not “arguing them together” any more than Republicans are arguing them together.

“Strike "not" from it and we're close.”

No, I'm still arguing them as two separate issues. It's just that one party is on the same side of both those issues while the other party is on the other side of both issues.

BT: "If I said I don't like green environmentalists or red light districts, would that mean I'm trying to make them into the same issue?"

“No, you'd be lumping them together in the same sentence, although they're separate issues. (Perhaps we're getting somewhere now.)”

Exactly my point. You can mention both issues in the same sentence but they're still separate issues.

BT: quoting me: “What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?”

BT: Where did I say that “abortion was changing fast in our society”? You're still trying to conflate the two issues. I didn't say they were the same issue.

“No, you've cleared up why you chose to lump the two together in the same sentence--because some Republicans choose to combine the two. But you DID say "American society is changing fast, and what was unthinkable no more than a decade ago is becoming the norm." So I was asking, what about abortion that you thought was changing fast. You clarified that above--that it's society's perception and their acceptance of it (70% I think) that you believe is a changing norm.”

No. Actually when I said that our society was changing fast I was referring to the perception of same sex marriage. I hadn't been thinking of abortion at all and it was only when you brought up the subject of abortion that I went to look up if that too had been changing.

BT: "If abortion is part of the argument, either pro- or anti-choice, then it IS part of the argument. You can't just ignore it when it's such a big issue these days."

BabeTruth (quoting me): “I assure you I won't ignore it.”

BabeTruth: "First you complained that I included it, and now you want to complain if it's ignored?"

“You either were not comprehending or being dishonest by twisting what I said. You said I can't ignore it, and I simply replied I won't ignore it. How you would infer or think I said or implied I now want to complain if it's ignored, is incredulous. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a misunderstanding.)”

I'm hardly being dishonest about it. I think both of us are misunderstanding the other.

BabeTruth (quoting me): “It stops a beating heart.”

BabeTruth: Not until somewhere between the 9th and 14th week. A heart can't beat before it's formed.

“Okay. You brought time into this. Is there a point in relation to these or other timelines for what you believe are acceptable for abortions? What are they; what are your parameters for acceptable abortions?”

I'm vehemently against abortion in the third trimester. IMHO, if a woman has carried a fetus for 6 months then I don't agree with terminating unless it's a medical emergency for her. I also don't agree with an abortion but in the second trimester but not quite so absolutely. All that being said I think if a woman makes her decision as soon or almost as soon as she knows she's pregnant (in the first trimester) then I think there should be some time at least that she should be able to make her choice.

Again, I've seen the results of botched back alley abortions. A desperate woman will get an abortion regardless.

“The prefixes "pro" and "anti" are self-explanatory. I can assure you a million dead babies every year don't care what words you choose. You go ahead and call me whatever you think is "far more accurate."”

If the prefix “pro”, meaning “for” abortion is so self-explanatory, then why do so many anti-abortionists use it incorrectly. To be “pro” abortion means that you want everybody to have an abortion just like “anti” abortion means that you want nobody to have abortions. I have never in my life met anybody who wants people to have abortions. To use the term “pro” is nothing more than incendiarism.

BT (quoting me) “I'll be pro-choice whenever the child is given a choice in the matter. Just let me know when that occurs.”

BT: "It occurs when there's an actual child, not a fetus. They're not the same thing."

“At what point in time do you believe the fetus becomes a human being?”

This post is already getting too long (lots of people complain then – even though there are many points to be covered) so I won't go into the proofs here, but throughout history and even in Biblical times it wasn't considered a baby until actual birth had occurred. There are societies where infant mortality was so high that refused to even name a baby until it was between 2 and 5 years old. There are passages in the Bible (I don't have them right at hand so you can find them as easily as I can) that reflect that feeling that it wasn't a person until several months after birth when they were sure it was going to live. It's actually the advent of modern neo-natal medicine that has changed making the ones who consider a fetus interchangeable with a baby as the ones who are moving the goalposts.

“At what point do you believe an abortion would be tantamount to the killing of an "actual child" and which is an abortive procedure of a "fetus"? Or, is there ever a point in which you believe an abortion would be wrong? Before a beating heart, but not after? Or, how much time after that heart begins to beat do you think we should give him to live in his mother's womb before it's no longer right to stop his beating heart? Please clear up what you mean. (Perhaps we're closer to understanding than I'm aware.)”

Perhaps we are. If there's no beating heart, and no brain activity, (in the old days they used to say that it “had quickened” or “when God breathed life into it”, then it still hasn't differentiated into an individual entity. Unless you're a vegan, you've probably eaten eggs at some point in your life. Do you consider eggs exactly equivalent to chickens?

“It is not necessary to point out the obvious, but what you *have* suggested/implied is that it's futile for Republicans to be backing this "losing horse" anymore. Wasn't that what you said?”

Both these religiously motivated issues are losing ground in every poll taken, to the point that the side the GOP is backing is becoming a shrinking minority. But the issues are both so inflammatory that I think people are becoming wary of voting Republican specifically because of these two things. If the number of supporters keeps getting smaller there will have to come a time that the leaders in the GOP will have to drop them as planks if they ever hope to regain power. And like all politicians, getting into power is actually more important to them than living up to their promises.

BT (quoting me): “I realize that's a steep hill to climb--the unborn have the odds stacked against them.”

BT: Yes, God kills far more fetuses every day than abortion ever will.

“Wow. Relating that to people who kill fetuses, your point is exactly what?”

If you toss out a platitude like that, don't be surprised to get a similar comment in return. It's quite possible that every act of intercourse that occurs between a couple of days before ovulation and a woman's next period results in a fertilized egg, so that a woman doesn't become pregnant, nature (or God) destroys far more fertilized eggs than abortion ever could. It's something to consider that if you have unprotected sex with your wife during her fertile time you're actually precipitating a natural abortion even if she doesn't become pregnant.

BT: "Arguing them together is just something in your own mind. I'm not arguing them together. I'm just noting that they are two (separate) issues that “Christians” use together to beat on the Democratic Party.

“That's not the language of someone seeking answers, as you allude in your OP, IMHO.”

From what I've seen on this forum, the majority of GB's who are vehemently anti-abortion (and coincidentally perhaps are also anti- same sex marriage?) are not people seeking answers. I've tried to engage them in logical debate and they adamantly refuse. They want to push their POV and their POV only and aren't interested in any other opinion or even facts.

“I'm really curious, but it really does seem that the two issues you have highlighted are what you're referring to when you talk about "extremist Christians." Izzat true? Is that what you believe?”

In response to your question I googled “religious extremist” and it returned fundamentalism and fundamentalist.

Just because most of them (Westboro Baptists aside) aren't militant doesn't mean that they aren't extremist.

I have an S-I-L who's a fundamentalist who I find to be like that. She twice had children out of wedlock, has a brother who's gay, her daughter had an abortion and had a child before she was married to a different man many years later. And yet she damns other such 'sinners' left and right but not her own family. Kind of a double standard wouldn't you say?

“And, what was your point in putting the quotes around "Christians"?!?”

I put the quotes around it because even though THEY call themselves Christians, they really don't observe the Biblical admonishments to 'love they neighbor as thyself', to 'avoid the sin of pride/arrogance' or not 'to judge others' etc. They are often the most judgemental people I've ever seen outside of an Iranian Ayatollah and they certainly don't show much love for anybody with a different opinion than themselves, often vehemently attacking others. They also exhibit more than a little pride in the Christianity and they often tell falsehoods (make up their own meanings for words) to advance their cause if they can't win with the standard dictionary definitions.

In short, just because THEY call themselves Christians I don't believe they are really.

“My personal story doesn't fit your meme. Does it?”

I wasn't trying to say anything about your personal story. I was trying to point out my own, which is not an 'ex-Democrat'.

“If your goal is to marginalize yourself with the very folks you're highlighting in the topic--you're a success! You're not going to have converts with that approach.”

I have no illusions of converting the “Christians”. They seem to be immune to logic and unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion. When put into a position where their POV is in danger of being proved wrong, they either pretend not to have seen the post, they change it in their minds into something else or they start name calling and personal attacks. They're not going to have any converts with that approach either.

“So in effect, you're left preaching to the choir whilst alienating the sinners.”

Isn't that exactly what the “Christians” are doing? They don't care to really debate. They just want to beat on others who don't have identical beliefs to themselves.

“If you still wish to study whether the GOP can survive Christianity, perhaps we'll have something to discuss.”

That's exactly what this thread is about. While in the past the GOP gained a lot of votes by presenting itself as the party that supported religion (can there be any better example than the thread about Bishop Jackson and Christians should leave the Democratic Party?), I'm really starting to wonder if the tide has turned and that aligning too closely with religion might be starting to hurt the Party more than it helps it.

We've already seen how the GOP politicians don't live up to what the extremist “Christians” expect of them so I wonder if it's only a matter of time before either the “Christians” wake up and stop following the GOP so slavishly or if the GOP itself cuts its losses and drops the religious facade in order to pick up more centrist votes.

“We had common ground once. You've taken two red hot issues and equated them with a dead horse (for the GOP).”

All the polls indicate that they are losing issues for the GOP. Pro-choice (as I pointed out with my own example, the degree of support isn't an absolute) is at 70% and growing, and same sex marriage support is now the majority and is overwhelming among younger voters. So unless something drastic changes in public perception it doesn't look like these two will reverse. But I believe they are driving more people away from the GOP then they're attracting, which is a shame because there are many more conservative policies that may not be implemented as a result.

“You also seem to believe that because one is pro-life or doesn't believe in gay marriage that they're "extremist."”

No, that's not what makes one extremist. But the “it's so because I say it's so” approach of “Christians” and their refusal to actually honestly debate the issues, and then to attack anybody who disagrees with them is definitely extremist. Except for the violence I don't see a lot of difference between some of them and some of the Islamics who only see as far as their own beliefs and will not tolerate any other beliefs.

When somebody refuses to even let a couple of homosexuals use the word “married” for tax purposes when they've had a civil ceremony just because they think marriage is only a religious ceremony, it's hard not to see extremism.

“But using the terms "extremist" doesn't portend an open-mind of objectivity for understanding.”

Do you think that when anti-abortionists label me as a “murderer” that it portends an open-mind of objectivity or understanding on their part? Especially when I post, repeatedly, the dictionary definition of “murderer” which emphasizes that it must be “unlawful” and they totally ignore that part to again call me a murderer? And as you can see above I do NOT advocate that anybody have an abortion, EVER. And I'm solidly against late term abortions, which are the poster examples of anti-abortionists to the point where they try to present partial-birth abortions as the standard.

I've tried being open-minded with them for years. It hasn't worked and if anything has only emboldened them. I'm tired of trying to reason with people who are immune to reason and who won't even try to debate, but just declare “victory” without even discussing my points. “It's so because (they) say it's so” seems to be as far as they can take it.

“Just a tit-for-tat topic. (Udderwise known as "Us vs. Them.")”

Do you honestly deny that a many of the anti-Obama, anti-Democratic threads and a great number of the posts by certain individuals on this forum are not “us vs them”? There are certain posters on this forum who would sooner eat soap than admit that a Democrat politician or action was the right one. There are some posters on this forum who almost cannot make a post without making it into an anti-Obama rant. Why do you think I started this post as a counterpoint to “Is it time for Christians to leave the Democratic Party”? That's nothing more than an 'us vs them' thread.

That's why I thought you seemed to be a refreshing breath of fresh air before, that you actually wanted to debate, not just accuse and push an agenda. Was I wrong?
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,803
Points:4,262,335
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jul 10, 2013 9:24:15 AM

"(Sorry I wasn't more clear--would have saved you all that unnecessary gotcha time). ;-P. "

Oh gotcha, That's one minute of my life I won't get back, lol.

"The fact that someone actually engaged him in a serious discussion about these things should dispel any such notion. But, trashing Christians and Republicans and claiming the issues that they care about are "dead horses" for the GOP, doesn't seem like a desire for understanding, so the question in the OP seems a bit disingenuous. We'll leave that to BT to clarify. And I reserve the right to be wrong. "

Your serious discussion seemed more like an anti-abortion screed to me; ending with you stating you won't take BabeTruth seriously due to the inclusion of two examples of Republicans appealing to conservative Christians.

I don't see the OP as "trashing Christians" at all. I see it more as questioning whether the Republican Party's lip service to Christian planks in their platform is still working for them and whether they might focus on more important matters that will appeal to a wider voter base.



[Edited by: Zimcity at 7/10/2013 9:31:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,295
Points:1,126,030
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 9:53:35 PM

BT (quoting me): "But, 10 years ago, baby killing had been the norm for 3 decades. We kill over a million babies a year in the U.S. Nothing is "changing fast" about it. That is, unless we have ramped up the baby killing. What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?"

BT: "What appears to be changing is the attitudes towards Roe v Wade. In 2000, only 60% of people supported the decision Abortion Support at All-time High but now the figure is at 70%. Do you not think that shows an issue where the GOP might be backing the losing horse?"

I have said "I realize that's a steep hill to climb--the unborn have the odds stacked against them." It's a good thing my moral values don't change because acceptance of this holocaust "issue" as you call it might be getting more palatable to more voters.

BT: "Regardless of one's own personal opinion on a matter, there comes a time when it's best to drop a battle that's costing you more than it's gaining."

IF the goal was for the Republican party look like the Democratic Party, I'd agree with you. And if I didn't believe abortion is costing this country more than we're gaining. I will vote for what I believe is right--regardless of whether it's popular. (And if the GOP wants to drop it in their platform, I was looking for a political party before I signed up for this one.)

BT quoting me: “In your OP you lumped the two together, beginning with your very first sentence. You argue them together and therefore you imply they should be argued together.”

BT: "I'm not “arguing them together” any more than Republicans are arguing them together.

Strike "not" from it and we're close.

BT: "If I said I don't like green environmentalists or red light districts, would that mean I'm trying to make them into the same issue?"

No, you'd be lumping them together in the same sentence, although they're separate issues. (Perhaps we're getting somewhere now.)

BT: quoting me: “What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?”

BT: Where did I say that “abortion was changing fast in our society”? You're still trying to conflate the two issues. I didn't say they were the same issue.

No, you've cleared up why you chose to lump the two together in the same sentence--because some Republicans choose to combine the two. But you DID say "American society is changing fast, and what was unthinkable no more than a decade ago is becoming the norm." So I was asking, what about abortion that you thought was changing fast. You clarified that above--that it's society's perception and their acceptance of it (70% I think) that you believe is a changing norm.

BT: "If abortion is part of the argument, either pro- or anti-choice, then it IS part of the argument. You can't just ignore it when it's such a big issue these days."

BabeTruth (quoting me): “I assure you I won't ignore it.”

BabeTruth: "First you complained that I included it, and now you want to complain if it's ignored?"

You either were not comprehending or being dishonest by twisting what I said. You said I can't ignore it, and I simply replied I won't ignore it. How you would infer or think I said or implied I now want to complain if it's ignored, is incredulous. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a misunderstanding.)

BabeTruth (quoting me): “It stops a beating heart.”

BabeTruth: Not until somewhere between the 9th and 14th week. A heart can't beat before it's formed.

Okay. You brought time into this. Is there a point in relation to these or other timelines for what you believe are acceptable for abortions? What are they; what are your parameters for acceptable abortions?

BabeTruth (quoting me): “Call me "anti-choice" all you want.”

BT: "If people are going to call me “pro-abortion” (which is the furthest thing possible from the truth), then anti-choice is a far more accurate term."

The prefixes "pro" and "anti" are self-explanatory. I can assure you a million dead babies every year don't care what words you choose. You go ahead and call me whatever you think is "far more accurate."

BT (quoting me) “I'll be pro-choice whenever the child is given a choice in the matter. Just let me know when that occurs.”

BT: "It occurs when there's an actual child, not a fetus. They're not the same thing."

At what point in time do you believe the fetus becomes a human being? At what point do you believe an abortion would be tantamount to the killing of an "actual child" and which is an abortive procedure of a "fetus"? Or, is there ever a point in which you believe an abortion would be wrong? Before a beating heart, but not after? Or, how much time after that heart begins to beat do you think we should give him to live in his mother's womb before it's no longer right to stop his beating heart? Please clear up what you mean. (Perhaps we're closer to understanding than I'm aware.)

BT (quoting me) “Until then, I'll be voting for the Presidential candidate who promises to unstack the Supreme Court against holocaust of abortion on demand.”

BT: "And you're well within your rights to do so. Nobody is suggesting otherwise."

It is not necessary to point out the obvious, but what you *have* suggested/implied is that it's futile for Republicans to be backing this "losing horse" anymore. Wasn't that what you said?

BT (quoting me): “I realize that's a steep hill to climb--the unborn have the odds stacked against them.”

BT: Yes, God kills far more fetuses every day than abortion ever will.

Wow. Relating that to people who kill fetuses, your point is exactly what?

BT: "Arguing them together is just something in your own mind. I'm not arguing them together. I'm just noting that they are two (separate) issues that “Christians” use together to beat on the Democratic Party.

We've been 'round this block, but thanks for clarifying even more why you lumped the two issues together--although I disagree it is "to beat on the Democratic Party" to point out their platform and to disagree with it. That's victim talk as well as divisive, fight language. That's not the language of someone seeking answers, as you allude in your OP, IMHO.

Instead of "beating on the Democrats" I see them as issues which are dear to certain voters. If the Democratic Party wants to include those as platform issues, they'd change their platform (on a cold day in Hell, of course).

One of which, of course, is one of several reasons why I changed my party affiliation three years ago. I could no longer square my values with a party that didn't seem to match my core values. Does that make me an "extremist"? Perhaps to some. I'm really curious, but it really does seem that the two issues you have highlighted are what you're referring to when you talk about "extremist Christians." Izzat true? Is that what you believe?

(And, what was your point in putting the quotes around "Christians"?!?)

BT: "What you call “selected editing” was done because otherwise it would have appeared that I'm saying that I was an ex-Democrat, and I'm not."

Very coincidental that "as an ex-Democrat" does not fit what you're selling--that people are leaving the Republican party because these two "dead horse" issues. You CLEARLY know how to separate quotes from others. My personal story doesn't fit your meme. Does it?

BT: "If you care to be taken seriously, you'd reread the OP and see that you're taking it in a way it was neither implied nor intended."

You can throw it back in my face if you want. I've read it all. If your goal is to marginalize yourself with the very folks you're highlighting in the topic--you're a success! You're not going to have converts with that approach. So in effect, you're left preaching to the choir whilst alienating the sinners.

If you still wish to study whether the GOP can survive Christianity, perhaps we'll have something to discuss. We had common ground once. You've taken two red hot issues and equated them with a dead horse (for the GOP).

You also seem to believe that because one is pro-life or doesn't believe in gay marriage that they're "extremist." (Or so your OP seems to indicate.) Perhaps not. You can clarify as much or as little as you want. But using the terms "extremist" doesn't portend an open-mind of objectivity for understanding. They're simply wrong. Right? Dead horse issue-let the Christians go and survive. Right? Not much to talk about here! Just a tit-for-tat topic. (Udderwise known as "Us vs. Them.")

You're welcome to prove my concerns wrong. I hope I am.


[Edited by: ministorage at 7/9/2013 10:01:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,295
Points:1,126,030
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 9:52:55 PM

ZimCity quoting me: "I was a pro-life Democrat. Now I'm a pro-life Republican--partly because there are no more pro-life Democrats. "

ZimCity: "Democrats for Life" (link)

Yes, there are Democrat voters who are pro-life. But, that's not what I was referring to. I meant there were no viable Democrats running for President who would dare reshuffle the SCOTUS to unseat R v W. (Sorry I wasn't more clear--would have saved you all that unnecessary gotcha time). ;-P. BabeTruth acknowledged a couple times his OP and later--that Republicans haven't dared actually go there (Bush did not). So, it is no surprise that there are no Pro-life Democrat candidates.

ZimCity: "It seems the influence of the religious right may be dwindling as the Republicans seek to attract more moderate voters who would endorse their fiscal and other parties, but don't agree with some of the policies promoted in the OP."

I never really saw much influence. It appears to me it has always been more of a lip-service issue that establishment Republicans have used to keep the religious right appeased (as with George W. Bush) used the religious right for votes, and then did what they wanted anyway. The past 12 years has been a time of disillusionment for Christian voters, and I think the GOP is paying for that.

So, to me, it seems the other way around. It appears to me the Christian voter has been duped by the party for whom they have been fiercely loyal. Since I made the switch, I'm not expecting any miracles--but that doesn't mean I had to stay with a party that doesn't represent my values at all anymore. And that's what happened.

I agree with you and BT that the whole homo-marriage thing has also been a problem for Republicans. DOMA should never have come up for a vote back in the 90s. Marriage is a states issue, and the new ruling should give married people federal benefits (whether they live in a state that recognizes gay marriage or not). With this latest ruling, single people are still singled-out--straight and gay--so the equality argument is a weak one. Nothing is ever equal.

Abortion is another thing altogether. I realize it's not going to stop anytime soon. For me, the lives of babies, or whether or not my gay friend can marry his life-partner are very separate issues. Heck, my gay friend is pro-life--and a Republican. And HE doesn't like these two issues spoken in the same breath--by people on the right or left! He's been gay his whole life, goes to church, and is one of the most rigorously honest people I know. (I know, I probably just made some of my Christian friends around here feel faint.)

When I was a Democrat, my friend and I had arguments--he took the right side of the argument and I took the left side. Eventually--many years later--his side one, LOL. Seriously, these things are a weird dichotomy for some people on both the right on the left to accept. But it shows we simply can't put people into narrow little boxes. (And the left is just as guilty as the right; I've found neither side having a corner in the Judgmental Department of Bigotry.)

ZimCity: "P.S. the proper term is conjoined twins."

I'll be sure and remember that the next time someone asks me to hand them the box of Kleenex--I'll tell them the proper term is Walmart brand facial tissues ... made in Siam, of course. ;-P

ZimCity: "Yes BabeTruth, you should know the mere mention of abortion rights is going to spell a quick and decisive end to serious discussion about the influence of Christianity on the Republican platform."

The fact that someone actually engaged him in a serious discussion about these things should dispel any such notion. But, trashing Christians and Republicans and claiming the issues that they care about are "dead horses" for the GOP, doesn't seem like a desire for understanding, so the question in the OP seems a bit disingenuous. We'll leave that to BT to clarify. And I reserve the right to be wrong.

ZimCity to BabeTruth: "Maybe next time you should clear your topic postings with ministorage, so he doesn't get offended by NOTHING."

Since I never implied he offended me, nor that he needs to clear anything by me, I'll chalk that up to another misunderstanding. Or, perhaps it has more to do with what you once observed about yourself--that you can be quite a smart a$$ sometimes). ;-P
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,673
Points:2,262,530
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 12:06:09 PM



"The sinners of Noah's day did not give up their sin, even though Norah warned that God would destroy their world.

The homosexuals and prostitutes of Sodom paid no attention to their godly neighbors like Lot until it was too late to change their ways.

And so it is today. The people who pervert sex just laugh at their Christian friends; they ridicule what God is trying to tell them. They boast about their "newfound freedom" and encourage other people to join them, tempting even Christians to adopt their wayward lifestyles."

Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,673
Points:2,262,530
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 12:01:27 PM



"Duh. But it takes on a different party and the way that party defines itself."

I understand what you are saying, sgm4law, but still it was a take off from the other thread. The sames things are being questioned.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,872
Points:1,838,230
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 11:46:23 AM

"However there's no doubt that some Christians ARE extremists."

And there are extremist atheists...and extremist Muslims...and extremist Jews. I guess what is your point? If you are only talking about extremists nothing here really applies. Extremists on either side are not good for image.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,872
Points:1,838,230
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 11:41:23 AM

"But those two sentences are the real problem for the GOP. There ARE plenty of Christians who DON'T agree with their party--and they even agree with all or part of the Democratic Party's platform."

There are also many Democrat Christians that do not agree with the Democrat Party's platform when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, etc. Look at the way they spoke out against the gay marriage issue and how they disagreed with Obama's position...especially the black southern churches.

The thing about politics and national elections are that people always predict the end of the other party when they are in charge. But what happens? Something changes in our country that demands we be more conservative or more liberal and those middle people switch their vote and the country becomes moves back in the other direction.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,136
Points:2,989,595
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 11:09:22 AM

<<This thread sounds like a take off of the Topic: "Is it time for Christians to leave the Democrat Party???" that no1doc started.>>

Duh. But it takes on a different party and the way that party defines itself.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:24,673
Points:2,262,530
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 10:31:57 AM



This thread sounds like a take off of the Topic: "Is it time for Christians to leave the Democrat Party???" that no1doc started.

You guys have been arguing the same stuff in that thread for some time now. Why start a another one?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 10:22:33 AM

I think you're right Zimcity, especially your last paragraph.

It seems to be like waving a red flag in front of a bull and no amount of rational discussion is possible afterwards.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 10:21:11 AM

"But, 10 years ago, baby killing had been the norm for 3 decades. We kill over a million babies a year in the U.S. Nothing is "changing fast" about it. That is, unless we have ramped up the baby killing. What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?"

What appears to be changing is the attitudes towards Roe v Wade.

In 2000, only 60% of people supported the decision Abortion Support at All-time High but now the figure is at 70%.

Do you not think that shows an issue where the GOP might be backing the losing horse?

Regardless of one's own personal opinion on a matter, there comes a time when it's best to drop a battle that's costing you more than it's gaining.

Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 10:09:20 AM

ministorage “In your OP you lumped the two together, beginning with your very first sentence. You argue them together and therefore you imply they should be argued together.”

I'm not “arguing them together” any more than Republicans are arguing them together.

If I said I don't like green environmentalists or red light districts, would that mean I'm trying to make them into the same issue?

“What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?”

Where did I say that “abortion was changing fast in our society”? You're still trying to conflate the two issues. I didn't say they were the same issue.

BT: "If abortion is part of the argument, either pro- or anti-choice, then it IS part of the argument. You can't just ignore it when it's such a big issue these days."

“I assure you I won't ignore it.”

First you complained that I included it, and now you want to complain if it's ignored?

“It stops a beating heart.”

Not until somewhere between the 9th and 14th week. A heart can't beat before it's formed.

“Call me "anti-choice" all you want.”

If people are going to call me “pro-abortion” (which is the furthest thing possible from the truth), then anti-choice is a far more accurate term.

“I'll be pro-choice whenever the child is given a choice in the matter. Just let me know when that occurs.”

It occurs when there's an actual child, not a fetus. They're not the same thing.

“Until then, I'll be voting for the Presidential candidate who promises to unstack the Supreme Court against holocaust of abortion on demand.”

And you're well within your rights to do so. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

“I realize that's a steep hill to climb--the unborn have the odds stacked against them.”

Yes, God kills far more fetuses every day than abortion ever will.

BT: "But do you not think that many people in the Republican Party believe alike on both issues?"

“Many people in the Democrat party also believe alike on both issues. They are still separate issues that some people on both sides (you included) have decided to argue together like they're Siamese twins.”

Arguing them together is just something in your own mind. I'm not arguing them together. I'm just noting that they are two (separate) issues that “Christians” use together to beat on the Democratic Party.

BT: quoting me (partially) <<"It's clear to me--..--which party is becoming extreme.">>

BT: "Me too. But strangely I doubt if you and I think it's the same party."

“There is clearly no doubt about it. I'll repeat what I said (without your selected editing):”

What you call “selected editing” was done because otherwise it would have appeared that I'm saying that I was an ex-Democrat, and I'm not.

“But I understand why you edited out the "as an ex-Democrat" part. It doesn't fit with your meme--or with the premise of your thread.”

See above. You had it wrong.

“Next time, if you don't want others pointing out you're arguing the two issues together..”

Since I'm not arguing the two issues together, you have nothing to point out.

“That is, if you care to be taken seriously by folks like me.”

If you care to be taken seriously, you'd reread the OP and see that you're taking it in a way it was neither implied nor intended.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,803
Points:4,262,335
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 9:34:36 AM

"I was a pro-life Democrat. Now I'm a pro-life Republican--partly because there are no more pro-life Democrats. "

Democrats for Life

"In your OP you lumped the two together, beginning with your very first sentence. You argue them together and therefore you imply they should be argued together. "

They are two examples where Republicans have demonized Democrats. In no way are they linked other than as examples.

I think we have already seen Republicans doing the politically expedient thing in backing away from the same sex marriage issue. It seems the influence of the religious right may be dwindling as the Republicans seek to attract more moderate voters who would endorse their fiscal and other parties, but don't agree with some of the policies promoted in the OP.

"They are still separate issues that some people on both sides (you included) have decided to argue together like they're Siamese twins. "

P.S. the proper term is conjoined twins.

"Next time, if you don't want others pointing out you're arguing the two issues together, perhaps you can see fit to keeping your crusade for federalizing gay marriage a little more separate from the killing of unborn children. That is, if you care to be taken seriously by folks like me."

P.P.S.
Yes BabeTruth, you should know the mere mention of abortion rights is going to spell a quick and decisive end to serious discussion about the influence of Christianity on the Republican platform. Maybe next time you should clear your topic postings with ministorage, so he doesn't get offended by NOTHING.


[Edited by: Zimcity at 7/9/2013 9:39:59 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,295
Points:1,126,030
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 8:09:40 AM

BT: "They [abortion and gay marriage] are two separate issues. And I didn't say otherwise."

In your OP you lumped the two together, beginning with your very first sentence. You argue them together and therefore you imply they should be argued together.

Further down in your OP you said, "American society is changing fast, and what was unthinkable no more than a decade ago is becoming the norm."

But, 10 years ago, baby killing had been the norm for 3 decades. We kill over a million babies a year in the U.S. Nothing is "changing fast" about it. That is, unless we have ramped up the baby killing. What's "changing fast" about abortions in our society?

BT: "If abortion is part of the argument, either pro- or anti-choice, then it IS part of the argument. You can't just ignore it when it's such a big issue these days."

I assure you I won't ignore it. And, playing with the words "choice" doesn't lessen what an abortion does--it kills the unborn child, dead. It stops a beating heart. Call me "anti-choice" all you want. I'll be pro-choice whenever the child is given a choice in the matter. Just let me know when that occurs. Until then, I'll be voting for the Presidential candidate who promises to unstack the Supreme Court against holocaust of abortion on demand. (I realize that's a steep hill to climb--the unborn have the odds stacked against them.)

BT: "But do you not think that many people in the Republican Party believe alike on both issues?"

Many people in the Democrat party also believe alike on both issues. They are still separate issues that some people on both sides (you included) have decided to argue together like they're Siamese twins.

BT: quoting me (partially) <<"It's clear to me--..--which party is becoming extreme.">>

BT: "Me too. But strangely I doubt if you and I think it's the same party."

There is clearly no doubt about it. I'll repeat what I said (without your selected editing):

I was a pro-life Democrat. Now I'm a pro-life Republican--partly because there are no more pro-life Democrats. It's clear to me--as an ex-Democrat--which party is becoming more extreme.

(But I understand why you edited out the "as an ex-Democrat" part. It doesn't fit with your meme--or with the premise of your thread.)

Next time, if you don't want others pointing out you're arguing the two issues together, perhaps you can see fit to keeping your crusade for federalizing gay marriage a little more separate from the killing of unborn children. That is, if you care to be taken seriously by folks like me.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 7/9/2013 8:14:39 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 9, 2013 12:07:19 AM

ministorage "The killing of an innocent child and same sex marriage are two completely different issues."

Where did I say they were the same?

"A state government can grant a civil union that a church may or may not want to perform. If two people want to shack up temporarily, or live their lives together in monogomy and in love, that's not my business, same sex, opposite sex, whatever. None of my business. Nobody is killed. Nobody dies."

But the anti-gays are against that. They want to make it their business.

"--and linking murder to marriage in any way at all is disrespectful to human life."

Again, that's not what I said. I've never linked murder to marriage.

"Your high ground argument falls flat when you decide to include innocent children in the argument."

If abortion is part of the argument, either pro- or anti-choice, then it IS part of the argument. You can't just ignore it when it's such a big issue these days.

"My commitment to the protection of the most innocent among us, and whether or not a STATE will grant same-sex unions, are two separate issues."

They are two separate issues. And I didn't say otherwise. But do you not think that many people in the Republican Party believe alike on both issues?

"It's clear to me--..--which party is becoming extreme."

Me too. But strangely I doubt if you and I think it's the same party.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,295
Points:1,126,030
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 10:21:37 PM

BabeTruth: "For years believers in Christianity have demonized the Democratic Party as “godless” because of their support for abortion rights and more recently same sex marriage."

The killing of an innocent child and same sex marriage are two completely different issues.

A state government can grant a civil union that a church may or may not want to perform. If two people want to shack up temporarily, or live their lives together in monogomy and in love, that's not my business, same sex, opposite sex, whatever. None of my business. Nobody is killed. Nobody dies.

That I am clear about. You chose to ask me to be your buddy because of that.

But I am also clear that abortion is the killing of an innocent life--and linking murder to marriage in any way at all is disrespectful to human life. Your high ground argument falls flat when you decide to include innocent children in the argument.

My commitment to the protection of the most innocent among us, and whether or not a STATE will grant same-sex unions, are two separate issues.

I was a pro-life Democrat. Now I'm a pro-life Republican--partly because there are no more pro-life Democrats.

It's clear to me--as an ex-Democrat--which party is becoming extreme.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 7/8/2013 10:23:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,177
Points:757,300
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 9:42:46 PM

"..making it sound like all Christians should be treated as extremists."

Perhaps that's how you choose to read it but I didn't say that.

However there's no doubt that some Christians ARE extremists.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,136
Points:2,989,595
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 6:17:02 PM

"Is aligning themselves too closely with Christian extremists costing the GOP votes? Did it win the last election for the Democrats?"

<<You go from talking about Christians to talking about extremists. You made some great points until you made that distinction basically making it sound like all Christians should be treated as extremists.>>

But those two sentences are the real problem for the GOP. There ARE plenty of Christians who DON'T agree with their party--and they even agree with all or part of the Democratic Party's platform. So, the subject raises a good point. Will the GOP continue to lose in national elections because their base is far to the right of the average American? A lot of Christians are much more live and let live than people like Bachmann. Or Ken Cuccinelli, or Rick Perry. Etc.

just one example.

Profile Pic
NE Guy
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:7,877
Points:1,016,410
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:46:15 PM

But then again, what if Jesus quit instead?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,872
Points:1,838,230
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:20:27 PM

You go from talking about Christians to talking about extremists. You made some great points until you made that distinction basically making it sound like all Christians should be treated as extremists.
Post a reply Back to Topics