Danforth decries religious influence on GOP

... to draw an analogy between the GOP and the Taliban now did you?

Evie

They both want to impose their religious beliefs on the government and, therefore, everyone. They both want to limit what people can do and restrict rights.

Show me how they're different.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

... three links to GOP stating this bizarre belief about God? Can you provide three concrete examples of imposing their religious beliefs on the government? (Mentioning God or religion in the office of government doesn't count because the Democrats do that as well). As to the last on the list, you can probably provide a list on limits the GOP wants to put on what people can do. I could counter that list with one equally long (if not longer) where the Democrats do exactly the same. But be careful when talking about restricting rights, actions have to be rights to begin with in order for them to be restricted.

Evie

Opposed to gay marriage
Opposed to stem cell research - better to throw away excess embryos
Creationism over evolution
Ten commandments on government grounds (don't tell me about how it was OK 100 years ago - it wasn't OK then either)
And the beat goes on

If the only argument for or against something is that it is against the Bible, it shouldn't be a factor in making laws.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Opposed to gay marriage
FROM cnn.com
Indeed, of the nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination, six say they do not support gay marriage -- Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and the front-runner, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.
Only three are on record supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York and former Sen. Carole Moseley Braun of Illinois. All three are considered long shots for the nomination

The politics of stem cell?..
2001-AUG-9: USA: President Bush allows limited stem cell funding
2001-AUG-13: Reaction to President Bush's announcement
A Gallup Poll revealed that 50% of Americans approved Bush's decision; 25% disapproved and 25% are uncertain.
Now for the Politics
Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops condemned President Bush's decision...
Pat Robertson congratulated the president. He said: "I believe that President Bush provided an elegant solution to the thorny issue...
One of the most influential Fundamentalist pastors, Jerry Falwell, stated in his "Falwell Confidential" newsletter: "With great pressure weighing on him from those who want unlimited research on human embryos, I believe Mr. Bush adopted the only viable solution to this moral puzzle....
Judie Brown, president of American Life League said of President Bush: "He can no longer describe himself as pro-life."
Pathway Communications maintains The Nuremberg Files, a list of abortion providers and their supporters in politics, the courts and law enforcement. They have added George W. Bush's name to their list.
Wendy Wright, spokesperson the Concerned Women for America said: "The president's position contradicts the Nuremberg Code, ethical guidelines set down after World War II, which prohibits experimentation that knowingly causes injury or death to a human being. We should be horrified at the prospect......
.
.
more party politics
Stem Cell support is split according to who a voter intends to support for President. Those supporting Democrat John Kerry favor by more than a two to one margin, while those supporting Republican George Bush are opposed two to one.

The Stem Cell Debate 2/3 of the people don?t care for the facts they just side with the party lines. (The straight ticket lemmings)

More on religion than creationism over evolution
from a few non-lemming democrats
?The copied blogs below shall remain The Intellectual Property Rights of the original writers not mine.?
From http://www.2020democrats.org
Stepping out, best foot forward
Submitted by ianstorrar on Fri, 06/25/2004 - 16:47.
As a Christian and a Democrat, active in both religion and politics, I am dismayed at the number of times I am confronted with a personal dilemma. Too often I find myself in a conversation with a fellow Dem., or in a discussion between several liberals and perhaps someone else we are trying to persuade on a given issue, when someone will casually condemn anyone of faith for their beliefs and blame the tragedies of the world on religion. I am naturally disturbed that my religion, Christianity is usually the religion blamed for most things by the people I refer to, is so hated by otherwise like-minded people. I am not trying to complain about attacks on Christianity or my faith; I hope both are strong enough to survive them. However, the disturbing fact is that I more often than not, if ever, fail to say anything. Is it because I am too polite? Partly, but more than that, I think that it is far too easy for Democrats to fail to stand for their convictions. Unless we honestly acknowledge who we are we will never have a voice in the party or in the nation. I am not in any way advocating a religious take over of the Democratic Party. What I do support is a dynamic, engaging debate on ways to move forward on religion and democracy. I agree, this needs to involve all faiths and seriously address many issues, moral and those more purely political. Unless this takes place the Democratic Party will not be able to represent the hopes of the majority of the American people with any legitimacy or credibility; something that I think it does and has for seventy two years, or so. I'm glad we are beginning this process here and hope that we can continue to participate in open and lively, but amicable debate.

Can't fight fire with fire...
Submitted by MeganMac on Mon, 06/28/2004 - 17:37.
Here's the thing in my mind - making a case against religious extremism (referred to as belief in creationism in the Christian faith) by basically calling for folks to wake up and smell the evolutionary flowers seems to directly go against what I think the Dems need to be doing. The point is not to engage in a dogmatic debate - I think it's this intolerance for certain aspects of faith (those that aren't as probable or understandable to some given the modern world and understanding of how it works) that's given Dems the bad name in the first place. Treating such a significant community (not sure where the 45% comes from, but that's a big number) as if they are wrong for believing what they believe, and implying that the world (and thus politics/governance) don't work that way - because it's not rational - is not going to make anyone feel like their faith has any place in the Democratic party. We need to move away from defining specific idealogies (and hard as it is to acknowledge, to many people, evolution is just as idealogical as creationism) in the political forum as mutually exclusive of each other. If you're going to be a party of inclusion, you can't exclude people based on their beliefs, plain and simple.

Best intentions...
Submitted by ianstorrar on Tue, 06/29/2004 - 17:52.
I agree with MeganMac. This problem speaks directly to my earlier post. As a liberal democratic Christian I am very aware of the difficulty of trying to maintain my political beliefs and my religious position. The issue of creation is a very controversial one and one that so often serves to separate people on the religious right from social progressives. Other issues such as abortion and gay civil rights also serve to divide, these being far more political than creation.
To return to the thread, I don't think that this movement can achieve anything by focusing on religious issues as if one side is only right and the other only wrong. Progress can be made in promoting a Democratic party that includes varying faiths and moral positions.
One of the problems we see today in the party, that divides the left to great detriment, is that candidates like Kerry, Lieberman and others are forced to compromise and justify their religious beliefs in relation to their political stances. Unfortunately, we as a party and citizens do not follow up with a debate on these issues with open minds. When politicians are condemned or endorsed for living in a world with shades of gray and we demand black or white from them the right wins. I do not mean that we have to accept the unacceptable but right now there does not seem to be much room for a liberal politician to have genuine concerns about moral questions. Sorry for being so vague, I hope this makes sense.

Just religion in general?.
My beliefs and my faith are apart of me and do play a part in my decisions. Now I, hear one must leave ones own beliefs outside of the political arena. Where do the values you promote come from , and do you exclusive them in the decisions you make?

I would bet MLK & JFK believed in creationism and the Ten commandments.

Opposed to gay marriage -- so are a whole lot of Dems.

Stem cells? The "flush anyway" issue has gone by the wayside because they don't want to just grow them a little and harvest stem cells anymore. They want to clone human embryos.

Creationism over evolution? The vast majority of this has only sought to have Evolution taught as the theory it is.

Ten Commandments -- that has nothing to do with the GOP per se.

I haven't seen many politicians, if any, that argue that something must be in the Bible to be legislated. You're really reaching here.

Evie

"Ten Commandments -- that has nothing to do with the GOP per se."

per se includes your man Judge Roy Moore who was booted for his REPUBLICAN agenda?

You're not really interested in contrary arguments. Your head is made up. You are right and nothing anyone says is going to make you reassess your beliefs. I don't have the time or the energy to come up with dozens of links that you won't accept anyway.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

... debate. Your inability to hold up your end with ridiculous (unsupportable) statements such as "GOP thinks God talks only to them" in support of the inflammatory comparison of the GOP to the Taliban is evidence of your shortcomings, not mine. Don't confuse having strong opinions with an inability to recognize rational argument. Just don't see much of it in your contributions to this thread.

GWB is widely quoted as saying God told him He wanted him to be President. Tom Delay says God sent the GOP terry Schiavo. What's ridiculous is your inabaility to admit the truth, even when GOp leaders state it plainly. And you accuse Diana of intellectual dishonesty? The chutzpah!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

The only thing I've ever seen from a knowledgeable source is that GWB thought that God was leading or calling him to be President. This is a common expression among evangelicals. It does NOT mean that he thinks God spoke to him verbally saying;

George, I want you to be President of the United States.

As far as the accuracy of what GWB thought God was leading him to do, two terms as President speak for themselves.

"As far as the accuracy of what GWB thought God was leading him to do, two terms as President speak for themselves."

If God is leading our nation, why is it in the rat hole we all see it it?

Blame it on activists judges?

What a laugh. The same Supreme Court Tom Delay implicates in his sweeping charges "seated" your man GW in 2000 and righted a gay PRIVACY issue in Texas.

Either your God is all-powerful or he is allowing your right wing controlled THREE BRANCHES of government to take us to hell and back to reality.

Terri Schiavo (sp?). Three branches of government? You could have fooled me, but I guess religious folks are not supposed to have ANY say in how the country is governed. Right?

"The Defense of Marriage Act," the partial birth abortion ban, the ban on Federal funding for stem cell research using any but outmoded lines unsuited for therapeutic purposes, "abstinence only" sex education, the ban on needle exchange programs to fight AIDS, efforts to block health insurance coverage for abortion services for Federal employees... Those are just off the top oif my head -- surely even you know that the list is MUCH longer than that!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Facts or fiction (i think facts)

1 Clinton moved to stop the phase-out of the Methyl Bromide (nerve gas)
2 cryptosporidium (1994) Clinton supported weakening clean water regulations, allowing increased levels of Lead, Radon, & Arsenic in the water we use to drink and bathe in.
3 Northwest Forest Option 9
4 Signing the "Unfunded Mandates" Bill -- which replaces regulation with "market" control of environmental protections.
5 Signed bill repealing the 1958 Delany Clause which, until Clinton, prohibited adding CANCER causing pesticides or ingredients in food.

6 June 29, 1999 is a sad day for human rights
7 The Wall Street Journal accused the administration of caring "less about principle than about making a political deal." The Economist called Washington's approach "at best incompetent and at worst a step down a slippery path towards protectionism."

8 Clinton health care was "ration care."
In a break from three decades of Medicare policy, the Clinton Administration asked Congress Monday to steer Medicare patients to certain doctors and hospitals that offer discounts on the price of care they provide to people who are elderly or disabled. (quality of care no just price)

9 (AIDS) fiscal year 1998 (FY9 federal budget to be released Thursday by the Clinton administration - complete with a five-year balanced budget plan that includes $22 billion in federal Medicaid funding cuts -- indicate that funding for the full range of AIDS-related programs will be inadequate to ensure that HIV-infected Americans can benefit from new standards of care and state-of-the-art drug therapies.

As to the rest, please tell me what RIGHTS are restricted by not funding needle exchange programs and having a sex-ed ideology that doesn't try to get kids to not start smoking cigarettes by distributing free packs because we all know they're going to try them anyway.

Evie

It was about the Republican effort to legislate their personal sense of morality with force of law, in many instances to the detriment of the health of the nation and/or its citizens. In your example, the needle exchange program cuts AIDS cases, not just for addicts, but for anyone intimate with an addict, be they hetero- or ****-sexual, inside or outside of marriage. Republicans and the oxymoronic "Christian Right" have a very Old Testament moral compass -- "the wages of sin is death." Here's another example, from today's news in Texas:
Texas Senate passes bill to expand family planning.
Exceptions are Planned Parenthood (God forbid real experts be involved) and the "morning after pill," even in cases of rape! There's no difference in mechanism between the "morning after pill" and the regular pill, one reason the controversy abut the former shows the "Christian Right" increasingly targeting the latter.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

You advocate privacy and personal responsibility over "government intervention" when it suits you.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an abortion, needles, etc. If someone is being intimate with a drug user, they know they are a user. They should protect themselves, why is it any of your business? Talk about absurd public policy -- subsidize extremely risky behavior and not expect that more people will take the risk or get the message that the behavior isn't really wrong? This isn't a religious issue for me, it is one of personal responsibility. Get preggers, eh, just abort. Get an STD, go to PP for treatment and we'll pay for it. Wanna shoot up? Don't worry about getting AIDS cuz we'll give you the free clean needles.

Planned Parenthood are experts alright. Experts at getting kids sexually active at younger ages, and experts at ignoring cases of statuatory rape or incest when they give abortions to 14 y.o.'s without the knowledge of their parents or notifying authorities.

You want to fund abortions, open your own wallet.

As for the Plan B, I have many problems with how it is presented, but do think it is a bit much to limit even offering it. Hospitals -- where every rape victim should go -- can dispense or counsel regarding this in the event of rape and this is a totally different issue from health insurance and "family planning". Given their record, PP is likely to push Plan B -- it's a big money maker for them.

Evie

Real Experts at what Dave? Generating more income by working to make sure kids will get pregnant?

You sure have a novel concept of Christianity Dave. I guess the wages of sin are not death? What are they then? Why did Jesus waste His time dying for us? BTW, that comes from Romans 6:23; not the Old Testament.

the next three groups put together. You may not like it, because they offer comprehensive services and place the woman's wishes first, instead of treasting her like a human incubator, but that doesn't diminish my statement. As for "getting more income," that's another example of the big lie technique in action -- PP is a not-for-profit organization eligible for charitable giving according to the IRS (despite some conservatives' efforts to strike it from the list).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!