Freedom hating liberals

[BamaGrad03 0]

While searching for info on the ACLU spies in churches, I found that conservative churches are launching a campaign to do the same thing...because apparently, liberal churches are out promoting the other side.

(But I'm sure theirs are isolated incidents, and conservative baptist churches are the freedom haters)

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/...r-church-watch/

Towards the middle of the entry:

I grew up attending predominantly black churches, but I never noticed veiled political “preaching” until I attended a black church in D.C. I’d writhe in my seat (was I the only one?) as the preacher or guest speakers asked why Americans were “killing babies in Iraq” or that a “certain politician” was trying to turn back the clock on civil rights, etc.

[Tigermike 3,037]

I’ve attended two conservative Reformed churches. Besides asking the congregation to “pray for our leaders”, I never heard either pastor advocate a particular candidate, veiled or otherwise.

There are some churches, as you know, that allow politicians to speak during services. John Kerry and John Edwards are at least two I know about. Plain wrong. If churches want the benefit of tax exemptions, they must meet certain obligations. No church is required to obtain an exemption, but if they choose to do so, they cannot openly campaign in church.

Speaking from personal experience, some of the churches I have attended have provided "where they stand" literature for whoever wanted it, but I have never heard my Pastor endorse any candidate nor any political party.

[AURaptor 1,125]

While searching for info on the ACLU spies in churches, I found that conservative churches are launching a campaign to do the same thing...because apparently, liberal churches are out promoting the other side.

(But I'm sure theirs are isolated incidents, and conservative baptist churches are the freedom haters)

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/08/...r-church-watch/

Towards the middle of the entry:

I grew up attending predominantly black churches, but I never noticed veiled political “preaching” until I attended a black church in D.C. I’d writhe in my seat (was I the only one?) as the preacher or guest speakers asked why Americans were “killing babies in Iraq” or that a “certain politician” was trying to turn back the clock on civil rights, etc.

159043[/snapback]

See, when Liberal churches politicize their sermons, it shows they have a social conscience. But when the exact same thing goes on in Conservative churches, it's just them HATING freedom - again.

[Tiger Al 0]

I don't have a problem with churches offering "position statements."

And, BG, maybe I wasn't clear enough on the other thread...I think endorsement of candidates by a church, any church, is wrong. I don't think I can make it any clearer that I'm totally in support of church/state separation because it benefits both church and state, but also all Americans.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Tiger Al...do you think a church speaking against homosexuality and abortion during an election is wrong?

To take it further, do you think its wrong for a church to speak against both those things and show which candidate is for/against those two issues?

[Auburn85 432]

reading the quote that BG found, you would think we were intentionally killing kids in Iraq.

And I wonder who's the politician who's trying to turn back the clock on civil rights?

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al...do you think a church speaking against homosexuality and abortion during an election is wrong? If that is their belief they can talk about it any time they want.

To take it further, do you think its wrong for a church to speak against both those things and show which candidate is for/against those two issues? Probably not.

159065[/snapback]

Are those the two primary issues of concern for religious voters, whether someone is gay or can choose to have an abortion?

Would making both of those things illegal make them nonexistent?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Are those the two primary issues of concern for religious voters, whether someone is gay or can choose to have an abortion?

Would making both of those things illegal make them nonexistent?

159073[/snapback]

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, that abortion thing is of primary importance. And while making it illegal wouldn't make it nonexistant, neither do laws against stealing or murder, but we still have them. Are laws only to be made or cared about if they can 100% eradicate the problem? Or should the rightness or morality issue regarding principles of private property and human life come into play?

[Auburn85 432]

Yeah, dem. love tax increases, which takes people's freedom away,. They're not for the people having a little control over their SS, gun control, against drilling in Alaska,

Most want to depend on the people(taxes) that way the people will have to depend on them(welfare, free healthcare, free lunches for kids at schools,)

Yet on the conservative side, partial birth abortion.. wrong, the patriot act (although I don't agree with everything in it) wrong, want people to have a little control over their SS... wrong. Although Reid was for partailly privitizing it 5 years ago. Protecting the borders... wrong.. labeled bigots, racists

and on privatizing SS, I thought most dems were pro-choice? choose not or choose too, but they don't want us to have a choice

Yet, we shouldn't be so hard on Churchill, after all he's expressing his 1st amendment

hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites

[Tiger Al 0]

Are laws only to be made or cared about if they can 100% eradicate the problem?

No law can or will ever do that, which was my point. From a strictly legislative, governmental standpoint, which is what politicians represent, it makes no difference if someone is gay and certainly not enough to make laws prohibiting homosexuality. My take on abortions is the same as Bill Clinton's: Abortions should be legal and rare. We should spend money on reducing the desire for abortions instead of lobbying politicians to make them illegal. Once they are illegal again, I think the likelihood of having two dead human beings, baby and mom, will increase.

[Auburn85 432]

I agree with this, but what about a 13 year old being able to decide on her own without at least a parental guardian involved in the abortion decision. Or what about a 13 year old having an abortion without the parents ever knowing about the pregnancy or abortion?

TheACLU is for this

[BamaGrad03 0]

Al, you and I both agree...but the ACLU does not agree with us. They think, that if you preach against homosexuality/abortion you should lose your tax exempt status. That was my point. They think that preaching against those things, is endorsing a candidate.

Not for one second do I think that a pastor should get up and say "go vote for bush" or "go vote for Kerry". But, going back to the other thread, I have never heard that in a baptist church. I have never seen anything REMOTELY close to what was in that other thread. But to take it to the other extreme...the ACLU thinks that if you preach from the Bible, you are promoting a candidate. And that angers me.

But that is another example of society's attempt to eradicate all things christian from our country. You asked me for an example the other day...there you go. Now they are coming into our CHURCHES and telling us what we can and cant say. I dont think its right that conservatives are going into liberal churches either. But its one of those "you do it to us, we will do it to you" types of things.

And to answer your question, sure homosexuality/abortion stances are a make or break issue in voting. From a christian perspective...there are few things in present day politics that DIRECTLY relate to Biblical teachings (its easy to twist and spin when it comes to some issues). But homosexuality and abortion are two that do. Especially homosexuality. And many people vote on a morality basis. To many people those things are more important than where a candidate stands on economic issues, world politics, etc.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

My take on abortions is the same as Bill Clinton's: Abortions should be legal and rare. We should spend money on reducing the desire for abortions instead of lobbying politicians to make them illegal. Once they are illegal again, I think the likelihood of having two dead human beings, baby and mom, will increase.

159081[/snapback]

Knowing how seriously you take your faith, Al, this is hard for me to understand. Why do we only have to attack one side of the problem? Could we not reduce the desire for abortions AND make them illegal? I mean, at what point do we stop treating a baby like it's of no more importance in terms of rights than a wart being removed? When do we recover some basic human decency?

[Tiger Al 0]

Knowing how seriously you take your faith, Al, this is hard for me to understand. Why do we only have to attack one side of the problem? Could we not reduce the desire for abortions AND make them illegal?

I'm also a realist. If abortions were outlawed tomorrow they'd still be performed, only they'd be done by some hack with minimal medical knowledge. The woman and the person who performed the abortion would be criminals. Making it illegal sends it all underground. As it is, we can monitor the procedures to ensure the safety of the woman, regulate the standards of the clinic and its employees and also have access to the women who come to the clinics and can maybe change a few of their minds with pre-abortion counseling. And, again, if we could take the millions and millions of dollars spent lobbying politicians and put it to better use, the day might come when a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't even consider the legal option of abortion.

[Auburn85 432]

Knowing how seriously you take your faith, Al, this is hard for me to understand. Why do we only have to attack one side of the problem? Could we not reduce the desire for abortions AND make them illegal?

I'm also a realist. If abortions were outlawed tomorrow they'd still be performed, only they'd be done by some hack with minimal medical knowledge. The woman and the person who performed the abortion would be criminals. Making it illegal sends it all underground. As it is, we can monitor the procedures to ensure the safety of the woman, regulate the standards of the clinic and its employees and also have access to the women who come to the clinics and can maybe change a few of their minds with pre-abortion counseling. And, again, if we could take the millions and millions of dollars spent lobbying politicians and put it to better use, the day might come when a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't even consider the legal option of abortion.

159123[/snapback]

I agree because there is a doctor in Kansas illegally performing partial birht abortions. An d also, meth is illegal, but people still make it and take it, people still kill even though there's a law against murder. You're supposed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but saome people never do.

[Tiger Al 0]

Knowing how seriously you take your faith, Al, this is hard for me to understand. Why do we only have to attack one side of the problem? Could we not reduce the desire for abortions AND make them illegal?

I'm also a realist. If abortions were outlawed tomorrow they'd still be performed, only they'd be done by some hack with minimal medical knowledge. The woman and the person who performed the abortion would be criminals. Making it illegal sends it all underground. As it is, we can monitor the procedures to ensure the safety of the woman, regulate the standards of the clinic and its employees and also have access to the women who come to the clinics and can maybe change a few of their minds with pre-abortion counseling. And, again, if we could take the millions and millions of dollars spent lobbying politicians and put it to better use, the day might come when a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't even consider the legal option of abortion.

159123[/snapback]

I agree because there is a doctor in Kansas illegally performing partial birht abortions. An d also, meth is illegal, but people still make it and take it, people still kill even though there's a law against murder. You're supposed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but saome people never do.

159127[/snapback]

And you've stayed up way past your bedtime.

[Auburn85 432]

yeah, whatever makes you happy

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm also a realist. If abortions were outlawed tomorrow they'd still be performed, only they'd be done by some hack with minimal medical knowledge. The woman and the person who performed the abortion would be criminals. Making it illegal sends it all underground. As it is, we can monitor the procedures to ensure the safety of the woman, regulate the standards of the clinic and its employees and also have access to the women who come to the clinics and can maybe change a few of their minds with pre-abortion counseling. And, again, if we could take the millions and millions of dollars spent lobbying politicians and put it to better use, the day might come when a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't even consider the legal option of abortion.

159123[/snapback]

I'm a realist on some things. Drug use for instance. Now, I'm still not comfortable with decriminalizing everything because of other problems I see as a result, but if it came down to it, I could live with a decision like that because ultimately, it's on the dummy who decides to do drugs and as long as he/she doesn't hurt anyone else, I suppose that might be something we could accept. However in this case, you're talking about a separate being. A living entity with its own brain, own nervous system, own DNA. The only difference between that and the beautiful little girl I held in my arms five months ago in the delivery room is that one managed to travel a few inches down a vagina and the other one was unlucky enough to be conceived inside someone who doesn't view him/her as really human or something.

Frankly, I think the back-alley abortion angle is overplayed. Legalizing abortion doesn't make it safe. And there are simply no reliable numbers to support killing a child on the premise that many more women would die through illegal abortions. Even Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the doctor that worked with NARAL (back then known as the National Association to Repeal the Abortion Laws) in the late 60s and early 70s to have abortion legalized admitted he lied about the number of women they claimed were killed by illegal abortions in the book Aborting America. It was part of their strategy:

...it was always 5000 to 10,000 deaths per year.  I confess that I knew the figures were totally false...but in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted..."

And on top of that, we don't even know how many women have died from legal abortion in this country. The CDC doesn't require that information about pregnancy or abortion to be listed on death records. Even the World Health Organization admits that data on unsafe abortion are scarce and subject to substantial error. How can we make life and death decisions regarding an innocent child based on what amounts to unsupported assumptions?

I don't believe the choice is or should be between legal and illegal abortion. Women need viable nonviolent choices--marital or single parenthood and adoption options--with support that they need, and frankly, deserve. Research shows that the vast majority of women do not "choose" abortion, rather they go through with one because they feel they have no resources to support a different choice. A coerced decision is not a choice, it's a last resort.

Thing is, I'd gladly wipe out the death penalty for the guilty this second if we'd stop killing the innocent. And I agree that we need a better support system for single mothers and adoption procedures that are more uniform from state to state. An unplanned pregnancy need not consign someone to a life without an education or a job that will support a family. But killing the child is not the solution.