Danforth decries religious influence on GOP

What, specifically, do they do to help a family plan? Do they teach budgeting, financing and buying a home, buying a car, shopping for groceries, what?

If by 'Planning' you mean abortion, then I think you're probably right. They know more about it than anyone else, or even a bunch of groups combined.

Abortion is not their primary focus -- it's just that in many areas, they're the only venue that hasn't caved in to the anti-abortionists and so still provides women with that choice. PP's focus is on contraception, not abortion (though, of course, many on the right are now trying to tar most contaceptive methods with the same brush as abortion). And yes, they charge -- but far less than ost hospitals and doctors who prerform the procedure. They're a non-profit charitable organziation, as I indicated.

-- 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!

eugenics where they wanted to use birth control to eliminate the inferior races like blacks and, I think, gypsies. At any rate, there were other inferior races like the blacks that PP wanted to eliminate. They wanted to apply the ideas coming from Natural Selection to improve the human race by improved breeding techniques. The inferior races needed to be eliminated to prevent dilution of the gene pool.

Unfortunately, from their point of view, the Nazis gave all those ideas a bad name. They dropped discussion of the ideas and goals, but continued working to limit the inferior (their word, not mine) populations.

I guess you're into all that stuff Dave. That's a surprise. I would not have guessed it.

One would THINK you wouldn't want to highlight the origins of the organization.

Focus may be on contraception, but that's because that is where the money is for them. Non-profit? Yeah, the organization may technically be so, but lots of folks are making nice livings off this business.

Evie

believe women should be subservient to men, Diana. "Family values" only seem to include the Ozzie and Harriet marriage to many. And, btw, fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are equally opposed to gay rights, and for the same reason. All these things being said, few on the Christian Right are willing to adopt such violent tactics as the Taliban (though there are some -- one goes on trial this mroning for bombing Olympic Park and a couple of abortion clinics...)

-- 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!

fundamentalist Christians are almost the same thing as Muslim terrorists. Well, at least you give them some wiggle room before commenting about how some typical fundamentalist Christians will soon go on trial for murder. I guess you must have missed Christ's command to love your Christian brothers and sisters.

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV

He didn't say love one another if they are liberals.

"Wives submit to your husbands." The Southern Baptist Convention has made that an article of their faith: Baptists wrestle with encouraging submissive wives.
>> A proposed amendment to the historic statement of belief for Southern Baptists saying wives should "submit graciously" to husbands is likely to be the central issue next month at the annual meeting of the nation's largest Protestant group.

The amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message document also emphasizes the equal worth of husband and wife and the husband's responsibilities, but the mention of St. Paul's comment about wifely submission is expected to stir a hearty debate.

A special committee has drafted the wording, which includes, "A wife is to submit graciously ... <<
(end of free snippet -- the whole article costs, but a Google search on "Baptist submissive wives" will come up with lots of discussion on this travesty)

-- 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!

I very much resent fundies taking part of the scripture and ignoring the part they don't like.

Paul says for husbands and wives to submit to each other right after the scripture referred to above.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

and you are giving me a link to gracious submissiveness? My dictionary says subservient is 'useful in an inferior capacity'. Submissive is to submit. Submit is to yield to governance. There is no element of inferiority unless you are inferior to your city councilperson. You couldn't produce a link to back up your charge.

Yes Dave, I know all about Paul and the Southern Baptists. In fact, the church, including the Catholic Church, believes that Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. IOW, God is asking wives to graciously submit to their husbands. Wives are not forced to do this, and it doesn't mean that they should undure abuse. It means they should follow their husband's leadership as their husbands love them and try to do what's right for them. You are taking something that is meant to be a loving relationship, and trying to make it ugly. Too bad.

even as Christ loved the church enough to lay down their lives for them.

I don't know of any man that would do this and still abuse his wife.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

... an abusive Baptist husband is NOT following the teachings of the church.

Evie

in deep s**t with God, and has serious reason to question the sincerity of his faith.

... but this directly contradicts his distortion that fundamentalist beliefs condone wives subservient to the husband, with the connotation that the husband is free to abuse her.

I've never quite understood the objection to the Promise Keepers.

Evie

are just opposed to a large group of men meeting together exploring worship and methods of reconciliation. PK is VERY BIG on trying to heal racial and other wounds and divisions. It's just the sort of thing one would think DK would go for. He does, however, believe that conservatives are not Christians and PK is conservative.

PK is also, as you know, very big on improving and reforming relationships within the family.

And the same statement could be made about any secular group that attempts to push its ideology on the rest of the public. While they might not claim divine inspiration, they are often as set in the correctness of their beliefs as any religous fanatic. And they often view their founders, current leaders, or role models a "holy" light.

God told me so isn't a good argument.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

They, in the end, are all based upon personal belief of what should be. Just like religion. Both sides have fanatics who take these beliefs and elevate them to an absolute state.

... often come up with better arguments -- just so happens their faith agrees with them. My pro-life position, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with whatever faith I have, but I'll get labeled a religious extremist (by DK for one) rather than have my argument weighed and countered by logic.

Evie

The issue is the same as it's been throughout the history of Christianity (and Islam is worse) -- are the dictates and tenets of Christianity to be imposed by force on those who aren't Christian. In the Middle ages the "Holy" Office (aka Inquistion) used torture to force "heretics" to recant their beliefs, then killed them if they didn't. We're more civilized now -- we merely use fines and imprisonment to force our own beliefs on others. Is that "extremist?" Well, if you believe that God gave humankind free will, then you should also believe that the Christian position is to try to teach and persuade you of what's right and wrong, but not to "legislate morality." But all too many agree with a priest whose sermon I once walked out on: "you have free will to do only that which God wants you to do!" How is that "free?"

BTW, the Catholic Church is equally at fault -- wherever possible they try to legally forbid not merely abortion, but also birth control and divorce. That is not a position that respects human rights and free will, but the Church unfortunately is still made in the same authoritarian mold -- only its methods have been slightly tempered.

-- 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!


-- 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!

support secular beliefs also try to impose their beliefs on others in the hopes of spreading their own variety of truth. I admit that there are those in the Church who attempt to force their beliefs down other's throats. Arrogance, self-righteousness, and poor judgement are not qualities limited to Christians, they are rather common faults among all of us.

Anyone try to force your wife to have an abortion lately? My favorite bumper sticker on the abortion issue is "against abortion? Don't have one." I don't know of any secularists who try to force their views on others -- they merely try to prevent others' views being forced on them. But the "Christian right" feels it's their right and privilege to decide things not just for themselves, but for everyone else, too. That's more like Russia or the Taliban than America -- but those who oppose their attempted theocracy are called "anti-American," too.
-- Dave K.

force their views on others'

You really need to get out more Dave.

the "christian" right from intruding into all aspects of government. The Ten Commandments Rock is just the latest example of that intrusion. Had you the opportunity to talk to the Founding Fathers you would find virtually all of them would have said they were God-fearing Liberal Humanists, just check out their letters and biographies, its quite a prominent theme.

You assert your right to believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design and get it into the school curriculum. I have no problem with your believing it. I have a lot of trouble with it being asserted as scientifically valid and supported by evidence in the same way as Evolution is with its Century and a half of scientific validation leaning all one way. I have a lot ov trouble with it being inserted into the science curriculum and the text books of any State. A scientific "theory" is not supposed to be "revealed truth", all at once in a totality like Saul on the road to Damascus, it is a working hypothesis to which each piece of old or new evidence is brought to see if it fits or if the "theory" needs to be modified or the evidence needs to be better understood.

BTW KP how old is the earth? and How old is mankind?
Is it Bishop Ussher's 6009 years, or some other figure?

Rob Boyter

... why public education controled by the Federal Government isn't in the Constitution? Check out the NEA propaganda cloaked as curricula some time. Check out the push from organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood to provide medical treatment and elective surgery on teenagers without parental notification, let alone consent. There is a TON of agenda on the secular side as well.

views on others. You are a prime example of that Rob. You have a quite distorted view of history which you are constantly trying to force on others. If they disagree or marshall historians which contradict your views, you counter that the historical source is ridiculous (in your view) and that the person knows nothing about history. You continue to assert that you understand contemporary US life, but haven't lived here for something like 30 years if you ever did.

As far as 'creationism' is concerned, I have never advocated it. It is an attempt to force religion into the schools. You, like most of your ilk, insist on equating creationism with Intelligent Design even though the literature is available which shows that is not true. By doing that, you try to force your view on the rest of us that only Darwinism speaks for science. That assertion is simply not true. It is regrettable that your blind bias does not allow you to see that.

creationism -- there is no intellectual difference between the two positions. The key question showing that is "Whose 'intelligent design?'" Without a Creator, "intelligent Design" is meaningless, and that makes it merely an attempt to get around the universal recognition that "creationism is... an attempt to force religion into the schools." QED

-- 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!

Intelligent Design is,

or you don't know what Creationism is,

or both,

or you are speaking deceptively in spite of knowing the truth.

BTW, ID doesn't speak of a 'creator'. At least the literature I've read doesn't. It simply proves that certain things cannot have been produced by evolution. The develpment of those things has not yet been explained unless there was intelligent direction of the process. That is not religion. That is science. Dig right in! Explain how those developments can be explained by evolution or other means. I'm sure the scientists proposing ID will welcome your insight.

I do have the experience of having to climb over individuals to try to get to Biology Lab in college because there was a protest against dissection. Literally, I had to CLIMB over these people as they told me I was murdering and torturing these animals. This is tame compared to some of the actions perpetrated by animal-rights organizations.
Then, at Cornell in 1992(give or take a year) there was an armed takeover of the administration in an attamept to further Latino rights. Students entered the building with weapons, kicked out employees after intimidating them with weapons, defecated in the offices, and got a brand spanking new Latino Studies Program out of it.
I don't remember the last time that Christian protesters vandalized an entire city, but I do remember environmentalists and others doing the same a couple times over the past 10 years.
And the list goes on and on and...
Don't mistake conviction of belief for arrogance or an attempt to convert you.