who supports right to choose

[Corliss 0]

I generally do not argue with people who feel like they have biblical authority because it is all based on what makes them feel good to believe. It makes most people feel safer if they maintain a fundamental view and expression of their religious beliefs. I am Christian but definately do not hold fundamentalist views. I believe the Bible is not to be interpreted or applied literally. If we did interpret it literally accross the board this would be one savage society. That is what the Taliban is doing with Islam. Lord help us all if the ultra right wingers get anymore power. Have you folks seen a movie or read the book called "The Handmaiden's Tale? This "tale" shows us what it would belike if we were indeed a theocracy. Lets hope we remain a secular democracy.

Corliss

Edited January 15, 2010 by Corliss

[KartMan 58]

I generally do not argue with people who feel like they have biblical authority because it is all based on what makes them feel good to believe. It makes most people feel safer if they maintain a fundamental view and expression of their religious beliefs. I am Christian but definately do not hold fundamentalist views. I believe the Bible is not to be interpreted or applied literally. If we did interpret it literally accross the board this would be one savage society. That is what the Taliban is doing with Islam. Lord help us all if the ultra right wingers get anymore power. Have you folks seen a movie or read the book called "The Handmaiden's Tale? This "tale" shows us what it would belike if we were indeed a theocracy. Lets hope we remain a secular democracy.

Corliss

Well Said!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

To those who say we don't live in a secular society/government:

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers

Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

It is interesting to note that those who advocate abortion almost always are against the death penalty because it is 'cruel' and 'unreasonable'. Let's see if I understand that. They don't want a convicted killer executed, but they do want innocent babies killed if they may become an inconvenience to the living. I believe such non-thinking proves that reading the New York Times and the Washington Post has a tendency to rot the brain of liberals.

[pattygreen 5]

liberals march and scream over the slaughter of baby seals in Newfoundland, but they can't squeeze out a single tear for the butchered babies who can't even raise a whimper of protest against their slaughter. They profess to be terribly concerned over the horrific problem of child abuse, yet their spokesmen tell us the answer to the child abuse is to slaughter the babies before their birth! My, my , with 'defenders' like that, those innocent , helpless ones don't need any enemies. This proves once again that the only thing consistant about liberals is their inconsistency!

[pattygreen 5]

It's not enough for us to raise our voices, we must raise our princples to match bible principles and raise our children to do the same. The preachers of permissiveness have produced a jungle for our posterity, and when you realize the moral environment our children must grow up in, by comparison, Sodom and Gomorrah must have resembled a monestary. Just as the sodomites have come out of the closet and the fornicators have exchanged the sleazy motel rooms for co-ed dormatories, so we Christians must leave the safety and the security of the churches to tell men that Jesus Christ is the only hope for this world, and the bible morality is the only hope for our civilization. My grandchildren will not point to me someday and acuse me of cowardice for not raising my voice against pigpen morality. We Christians have confused meakness with weakness for too long. We have been too quiet and patient with those who tell us that prostitutes, pimps and pornographers are not villians, and that we must be careful not to bruise the constitutional rights of the atheists, abortionists, and anarchists. It seems that the communists, criminals, and moral cripples have more rights than those who make up the largest group paying the taxes, fighting the wars, building the factories, and producing the goods. We Christians have shown little class and less courage in our opposition to the forces of evil that are degrading our cities, demoralizing our citizens, and damning our children.We really need a code of Christian principles to follow.

[BJean 16]

patty: "...liberals march and scream over the slaughter of baby seals in Newfoundland, but they can't squeeze out a single tear for the butchered babies who can't even raise a whimper of protest against their slaughter."

And why are these little potential creatures unable to squeeze out a whimper of protest against their slaughter? Because they are not babies yet. Baby seals are able to scream because they are real baby seals.

[BJean 16]

patty: "We really need a code of Christian principles to follow."

YOU need a code of Christian principles to follow. Why do you need it so much? I do not know. But I do allow that you need it and see that you can't understand why others do not. In fact, you are so unable to understand it, you will not concede the fact that other humans do not need Christian principles in order to be fine, upstanding, moralistic human beings.

And what has been revealed to us by the extremist fundamentalist "Christians" is that some people who espouse Christian principles do not always follow those Christian principles with their behavior or in their hearts.

Just because someone says they follow Christian principles does not mean that you can trust them to be honest or good. In fact often in business, in my neck of the woods, businesses that advertise that they are a "a Christian based business" are some of the least reliable and trustworthy.

[rodriguezequal 3]

It is interesting to note that those who advocate abortion almost always are against the death penalty because it is 'cruel' and 'unreasonable'. Let's see if I understand that. They don't want a convicted killer executed, but they do want innocent babies killed if they may become an inconvenience to the living. I believe such non-thinking proves that reading the New York Times and the Washington Post has a tendency to rot the brain of liberals.

I'm not against the death penalty...I think sometimes it is used when it shouldn't be though

[rodriguezequal 3]

liberals march and scream over the slaughter of baby seals in Newfoundland, but they can't squeeze out a single tear for the butchered babies who can't even raise a whimper of protest against their slaughter. They profess to be terribly concerned over the horrific problem of child abuse, yet their spokesmen tell us the answer to the child abuse is to slaughter the babies before their birth! My, my , with 'defenders' like that, those innocent , helpless ones don't need any enemies. This proves once again that the only thing consistant about liberals is their inconsistency!

According to you those babies scream as they're being aborted...I don't consider taking a pill that allows an implanted embryo to slide out of the vagina being "butchered". Have you ever seen something "slaughtered"? Come on your word usages are ridiculous!

[tdslf1 0]

I second BJ's motion.

[BJean 16]

The only way they can make a case for controlling women's choice is by convincing people that a fertilized egg can scream and feels pain and they use the words "butchered" and "brain sucked out" and graphic materials even though they are inaccurate in many cases, to make women feel guilty enough to allow the government to make the decision for them. It's just plain crazy and outrageous. And we can't shut up about how crazy and outrageous it is because fear and guilt are very powerful emotions.

[BJean 16]

tdsfl1 - thank you.

I'm all about you and rodriguez's posts!

[tdslf1 0]

No shame in my game. The people Mostly religious crackpots)who talk like that are listed in my book as extremist and belong on the same bench as the extreme islamic community. Talk like that is crazy and bizzare.

[Corliss 0]

The only way they can make a case for controlling women's choice is by convincing people that a fertilized egg can scream and feels pain and they use the words "butchered" and "brain sucked out" and graphic materials even though they are inaccurate in many cases, to make women feel guilty enough to allow the government to make the decision for them. It's just plain crazy and outrageous. And we can't shut up about how crazy and outrageous it is because fear and guilt are very powerful emotions.

So right! It amazes me that people can be so self rightous. Those who take the bible so literally conveniently leave out the parts that hold themselves accountable for their failures or reproach them for their acts especially of condemantion. If they want to Celebrate their psuedo-piety, if they want to have their lives ruled by fear, that is okay for them, but I don't need it and don't try to force it on me or my kids or grandkids.

Corliss