Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples

Code:

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-church-votes-ban-interracial-couples-003419318.html

Cookie Parker wrote:

Code:

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-church-votes-ban-interracial-couples-003419318.html

Again, a Reuter's article, but basically this antiquated and racist scheme is the product of the minds of the born again evangelical fundamentalists Baptist. Go figure.

Arx Ferrum wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:

Code:

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-church-votes-ban-interracial-couples-003419318.html

Again, a Reuter's article, but basically this antiquated and racist scheme is the product of the minds of the born again evangelical fundamentalists Baptist. Go figure.

Ms. Parker, I do not mean to appear to be chasing your posts but... damn. How do you stereotype so many people under "born again evangelical fundamentalists" while appearing to defend racial diversity and civil rights?

Seriously, stereotyping all evangelicals or all Christians or all baptists is really no different than lumping because of skin color or nationality. It's the process of judging a whole lot of people based on one or a few... or on something that stands out to you.

People are responsible for their behavior individually. Familiar accountability is gone with the same wind as white-only water fountains.

One man or one woman may be racist but the people they go to church with or live down the street from don't deserve that kind of prejudice.

I hate to say it... but its really quite hypocritical.

Nine members of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church backed their former pastor, with six opposed, in Sunday's vote to bar interracial couples from church membership and worship activities. Funerals were excluded.

The vote was taken after most of the 40 people who attended Sunday services had left the church in Pike County, near the border with West Virginia. Many members left to avoid the vote.

Most members of the church "didn't want anything to do with this," said longtime church official Dean Harville, whose daughter and her black fiance had drawn pastor Melvin Thompson's ire.

2. Disagree, but be respectful to each other.

a) Politics and religion can, and does, tend to be heated subjects at times. Keep it real.

b) No flaming. That's internet-speak for name calling. None of that here. Libtard, Dims, Dumbocrats, Repugs, Rethugs, Tea Bagger, faggot, asshole, jerk, moron, etc will not be tolerated. Offending word(s) will be removed. They will be replaced with a moderator's notice of removal with the following text -- Comment Removed -- in red. If you feel the need to flame, then exit your post and go cool off.

c) If you accuse somebody of something, you had best be able to back it up. For example: accusing someone of being a racist is NOT allowed unless YOU have concrete PROOF. I get tired of this kind of tactic and will not tolerate it here.

d) Respect others line of thinking. Not everyone believes as you do on any given subject. If you don't like liberal views, then stray from subjects of that nature. If you don't like conservative views, then stray from subjects of that nature. Do NOT complain about someone posting too much liberal or conservative viewpoints or articles. If you don't like it, don't read it or reply to it.

Arx Ferrum wrote:In Re: How would you classify the above church?

I don't because the church does not, and was never meant to represent the entire membership on any subject.

Quoting the source story:

Nine members of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church backed their former pastor, with six opposed, in Sunday's vote to bar interracial couples from church membership and worship activities. Funerals were excluded.

The vote was taken after most of the 40 people who attended Sunday services had left the church in Pike County, near the border with West Virginia. Many members left to avoid the vote.
For four days in 1986, from July first through the fourth of July, Pat Robertson interviewed neo-conservative Dr. Harry Jaffa, a former student of Leo Strauss, on the 700 Club show. The topic was the importance of the Declaration of Independence. Joining with Jaffa was Robertson’s own man, Herb Titus, the Dean of CBN’s School of Public Policy. This series of interviews was one of the most important philosophical moments in the development of the political agenda and political philosophy of the Dominionists.



Robertson found in Harry Jaffa, the champion he needed, whose reasoning would influence how the Constitution should be interpreted by conservatives and would provide a “Christian” view of the establishment of the United States that excluded the secular social contract view. Harry Jaffa would influence both Clarence Thomas (who would be appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Bush senior in 1991) and Antonin Scalia (who would be appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan on September 26, 1986).



During the four days of interviews Jaffa and Titus agreed that the Declaration of Independence was the premier document and it superceded the Constitution. Titus said, “The Declaration…is the charter of the nation. It is what you might call the articles of incorporation, whereas the Constitution is the bylaws. The Constitution is the means by which to carry out the great purposes that are articulated in the Declaration.”



Robertson asked: “Let’s assume that eighty percent of the people are just totally immoral, they want to live lives of gross licentiousness and they want to prey on one another, that’s what they want and they want a government to let them do it. How does that square with the Declaration of Independence and its consent of the governed?”



Titus said, “Even the people can’t consent to give away that which God says is unalienable.”



Robertson then asked, “The principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, how far have we gone from it and what can we do to redress some of these problems?”



Jaffa responded cryptically:

“I’d say that today, for example in the Attorney General’s [Edwin Meese’s] warfare with the liberals on the Supreme Court, in his appeal to original intent, he appeals to the text of the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison said together in 1825, ‘If you want to find the principles of the Constitution of the United States, you go first to the Declaration of Independence.’”

First, Jaffa means by the term “original intent” that the Constitution must be interpreted according to what it meant when it was originally adopted. It is a revolutionary and brilliant idea that will allow the Dominionists to effectively repeal most of the judicial decisions made in the last century. [43]



Secondly, if we take Jaffa and the Dominionists at their word and go to the Declaration of Independence, we can see just how radical the conservative revolution and Dominionism are. The only portion that is ever quoted publicly are these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

The quote stops in the middle of the sentence—the part that is never quoted is this:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Dominionism then, takes its authority to overthrow the government of the United States from our own Declaration of Independence. By the time all Americans wake up to the Dominionist’s intent, it may be too late.
Most members of the church "didn't want anything to do with this," said longtime church official Dean Harville, whose daughter and her black fiance had drawn pastor Melvin Thompson's ire.

Clearly, the church does NOT represent all of anything.

Onward...

In re: For me, a born again evangelical fundamentalists is a republican tea partier..a very specific group of persons whose hatred and fear mongering has been plaguing the republican party and this nation on issues of morality they have tried to impose on our secular government since the mid-70's. They hate democrats, the poor and believe women are property. A very specific group of people.

Okee dokee, let's do both the GOP Teaparty and the born again Christian. It all works the same way because... if I am reading you correctly, you're saying that every single person whom YOU identify as a Teaparty member or a Christian fundamentalist, hates Democrats, the poor and believe women are property.

The question now becomes one of grouping and definition.

Please detail: Do you genuinely believe that ALL Christian fundamentalists and ALL who associate with the Teaparty movement genuinely HATE Democrats and the poor plus think that women are property? If so, what other negativity to you associate with these groupings?

Note: I suggest considering your reply carefully because you will be defining yourself therein.

Time for more coffee!

Code:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

How Can Evil Deeds Be Reconciled With Christian Beliefs?



It’s important to understand that the founders of Dominionism are sitting on the horns of a moral dilemma: How can a leader be both good and evil at the same time? For if biblical moral proscriptions are applicable to him, he will certainly suffer some form of censure. And if proscriptions are applicable, the leader could not lie to the citizenry with impunity or do evil so that “good” could be achieved. The answer to the dilemma of how a Dominionist leader could both do evil and still maintain his place of honor in the Christian community lies in the acceptance and adoption of the Calvinistic doctrine that James Hogg wrote about in The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. (W.W. Norton, N.Y. 1970.)



This novel, published in 1824, is concerned with psychological aberration and as such, anticipates the literature of the twentieth century. The protagonist is a young man named Robert, who drenched in the religious bigotry of Calvinism, concluded that he was predestined before the beginning of the world to enter heaven, therefore no sin he committed would be held to his account. This freed Robert to become an assassin in the cause of Christ and His Church.



Fifty years ago a variation on the concept was expressed disapprovingly as, “Once saved—always saved.” In this view, salvation had nothing to do with “good works or a holy life.” A drunk who had a born again experience would be among God’s chosen elect whether he stopped drinking or not. But the logical extension of the reasoning is the idea that Christianity could have within itself not ex-sinners but active sinners: as Christian murderers, Christian pedophiles, Christian rapists, Christian thieves, Christian arsonists, and every other kind of socio-pathological behavior possible. As we have sadly witnessed of late the concept is broadly accepted within the American churches.



But the dominionists needed an aberrant extension of Calvinism; they believe as did Calvin and John Knox that before the creation of the universe, all men were indeed predestined to be either among God’s elect or were unregenerate outcasts. But it is at this point dominionists introduced the same perversion to “Supralapsarianism,” as James Hogg utilized in his novel. They assert essentially that the man called from before the foundation of the world to be one of the elect of God’s people, can do no wrong. No wonder then observers noted a definite religious swing in George W. Bush from Wesleyan theology to Calvinism early in his administration. [25]



How comforting the idea of a “justified sinner” is when one is utilizing Machiavellian techniques to gain political control of a state. It’s more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for “Christians” who believe they must use evil to bring about good. It justifies lying, murder, fraud and all other criminal acts without the fuss of having to deal with guilt feelings or to feel remorse for the lives lost through executions, military actions, or assassinations.

A new world was coming. To help the transition along, Pat Robertson, along with other pastors, evangelists and churchmen, founded schools, universities and colleges throughout the United States to train “Christians” how to run for office, how to win, and how to manage the affairs of government after they gained office. To get an idea of how successful the plan was, Robertson’s Regent University now has a $100 million endowment. After watching the Dominionists takeover the Republican Party and observing their ruthless methods, it is indeed apparent that Machiavellian principles are the fuel running their “How to Manual.”



Starting with a class of only twelve in 1985, Robertson began his Journalism Department at CBN University where 800 other graduate students were earning Master degrees in a fully accredited institution. Later Robertson changed the name of CBN University to “Regent University”—based on Dominionism’s teaching that the national government of America and governments of the world will be ruled by Dominionists, who will act as regents on an interim basis, that is, until the true King—Jesus Christ—will return to earth again and gratefully accept His Kingdom from the hands of His faithful regents.

Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.[48] It inherently includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God’s election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nations—wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God’s approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God’s disapproval. The roots of the idea come from a natural twist of an Old Testament passage, which I discuss below. Essentially there were two elements necessary to establish Dominionism among Christians who previously believed helping the poor was a mandate of Christianity.[49]



First, Old Testament law had to be accepted as an essential part of a Christian’s theology.



Secondly, the Christian had to undergo a second conversion-like experience that went beyond being born again and demanded not only a commitment to reestablishing the Old Testament legal structure but required the implementation of that law in the nations of the world (including the U.S.) based upon a different understanding of the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20).[50] Under this concept Dominionists are to go into all the world to take dominion and “make disciples” teaching the disciples to “observe all” that Jesus “commanded.” All nations under Dominionist’s teaching are to convert to biblical laws, which are ranked superior to secular laws that were not God given or God directed and are found wanting. The Christian therefore must be willing to overthrow all laws that are secular.



In other words, a measure of one’s spirituality rested upon the individual’s willingness to accept the concept of taking dominion over not only the people of America, but taking dominion over the people of the entire world. From Dominionists’ actual words, the taking of America is perceived as a violent act. Ben Kinchlow who co-hosted CBN’s 700 Club with Pat Robertson told an audience, “We need to grab the American dream by the short hairs and snatch it back to where it was originally designed to be.”

If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.



Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal”—one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy—who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans—who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values—those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness—or worse: extinction.



Dominionists determine who is among God’s elect—not solely by a religious experience such as being born again, but by a political determination of whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative or simply a person who questions the deeds of Dominionist political figures. The politics of exclusion, including bigotry, is in fact wide spread throughout the United States.



Take, for instance, Sean Hannity’s remarks to Time Magazine, “You can play golf with liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to dinner. I just don’t want them in power.”[51] Or take Ann Coulter’s assertions: “Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.” Or, “Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy.” (It turns out that every single “liberal” in the country is a member of the Democratic Party and therefore is a traitor.)[52]



The Machiavellian nature of the Dominionist cult explains why Bill Clinton who is a Christian believer was attacked so viciously for his sexual folly but Newt Gingrich, Bill Livingston, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond and scores of other Republicans escaped the punishment of public ridicule, verbal abuse, and humiliation for the same sexual peccadilloes. (It appears only Democratic “liberals” must be held to the fire of biblical standards and biblical punishments because as we all know, they are “unregenerate from the beginning of time.”)



Robertson’s book acknowledges that his followers, the “Christian” army raised up for political purposes are the elect chosen to rule. Robertson’s transcribed television interviews and dialogs give shocking evidence to the legitimization of greed, hatred, violence and cruelty by members of the various fundamentalist branches of the American clergy and by elected officials of the Republican Party, which can be cited as evidence that Dominionism is not a Christian religion—that above everything else, Dominionism is synonymous with Machiavellianism: the ends justify the means. Under Dominionism, true Christianity is a target to destroy, not a goal to achieve.

TexasBlue wrote:This is a sticky issue for me in here because I had a problem with a member a couple years ago who liked to make blanket broad brushes on a group of people such as we have here in this thread.

One, just because one is religious doesn't make them racists, homophobes or right wing. I know religious people who are none of those and I know religious people who are some of those. I know Democrats who are racists up here in the liberal state of Minnesota, too. Painting a broad brush of a group of people isn't cool (to me).

It's no better than me saying all black people are lazy or that Mexicans are all illegal aliens. Neither is true and nor do I feel that way. Or, one could say all Democrats are communists/socialists. Neither is true. The point is, that one can find those accusations in any given group but not overall.

I should point out this from our forum rules just as a refresher for everyone;

2. Disagree, but be respectful to each other.

a) Politics and religion can, and does, tend to be heated subjects at times. Keep it real.

b) No flaming. That's internet-speak for name calling. None of that here. Libtard, Dims, Dumbocrats, Repugs, Rethugs, Tea Bagger, faggot, asshole, jerk, moron, etc will not be tolerated. Offending word(s) will be removed. They will be replaced with a moderator's notice of removal with the following text -- Comment Removed -- in red. If you feel the need to flame, then exit your post and go cool off.

c) If you accuse somebody of something, you had best be able to back it up. For example: accusing someone of being a racist is NOT allowed unless YOU have concrete PROOF. I get tired of this kind of tactic and will not tolerate it here.

d) Respect others line of thinking. Not everyone believes as you do on any given subject. If you don't like liberal views, then stray from subjects of that nature. If you don't like conservative views, then stray from subjects of that nature. Do NOT complain about someone posting too much liberal or conservative viewpoints or articles. If you don't like it, don't read it or reply to it.

Code:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-mitrovich/how-fundamentalists-becam_b_133418.html

American Christian "fundamentalism", which dates, in part, to the great Fundamentalist-Modernist debate of the 1920s and 30s, is still with us - in greater numbers than before. Fundamentalism, at its core argues the Bible is inerrant, that scripture is literally true, without error - every word and every verse of every chapter in every book of the Old andNew Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.

It might astonish you how many people believe the verbal inspiration of scripture, that the books of the Bible, in both Testaments, were written by men as God dictated to them to write. Hence, by that act of composition, the Bible is faultless. Those who hold this view are fundamentalists.

Secondly, there is another community of Christians, however, who hold to a different view. That community believes in the plenary inspiration of scripture. They hold scripture to be inspired but not infallible. Many who hold this view are evangelicals.

To a non-Christian, a non-faith, non-religious person, why should that matter? Verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, fundamentalist, evangelical, who cares?

On the night of the nationally televised appearances by McCain and Obama, Rick Warren asked the two candidates when life begins? Obama gave a highly nuanced answer, saying, among other things, it's "above my pay grade." McCain, conversely, answered directly and dramatically, "At conception." Obama's answer received polite applause. McCain's answer received loud and sustained applause. The notable difference in reactions was no surprise; those in attendance were members of Saddleback, a Southern Baptist church.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is America's largest Protestant church - and a Fundamentalist denomination; one that rejects modernity (the SBC, for instances, does not ordain women). Warren and his church have achieved remarkable success, and they do good charitable works, but the church's connection to the SBC has been minimized. You cannot find it referenced on the church's Web site (thus avoiding the embarrassing fundamentalist connection).

Should that matter? Yes, because we're in the midst of the most important presidential campaign in our history and the religious right, i.e., fundamentalists, will be a significant factor election day.. . .

Code:

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/08/09.aspx

For Immediate Release (Grand Rapids, MI), August 9, 2011 -- With the legendary Iowa Straw Poll taking place later this month (August 13), Zondervan is proud to announce it has acquired CBN News Chief Political Correspondent David Brody’s new book, The Teavangelicals: The Inside Story of How Evangelicals, the Tea Party, and Presidential Contenders are Trying to Take Back America.

Brody, a respected journalist with a twenty-five year, Emmy-winning career in television, takes the reader behind the scenes in Washington and throughout the country where he discovers:

• Teavangelicals: A new, emerging political force that is plotting strategy at this very moment to reclaim America

• The Tea Party-Evangelical Christian relationship: Why the mainstream media continues to portray Evangelicals as a threat to the Tea Party Movement, and why the mainstream media continues to get it wrong.

• More than half of Americans who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party identify themselves as born-again Christians

• The “nerve center” of this powerful new movement is far, far away from Washington, DC in the Atlanta suburb of Duluth, GA. Brody gets inside and reveals all.

• Why Evangelicals ARE critical to the success of the Tea Party.

“If you remove fiscally conservative evangelical Christians from the Tea Party movement, you’re left with half a loaf. This book takes the reader on a behind the scenes adventure guaranteed to explore and reveal the evangelical tentacles that permeate the movement,” Brody says.

Cookie Parker wrote:I certainly hope this explains it better. It is not broad sweeping and unfounded comments I am making. I am basing this on the Graham/Falwell/Robertson movements.

TexasBlue wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:I certainly hope this explains it better. It is not broad sweeping and unfounded comments I am making. I am basing this on the Graham/Falwell/Robertson movements.

The Graham/Falwell/Robertson movement is a minority movement at best. A majority of people don't follow this nor subscribe to the issue at large. If they did, Robertson would've became president way back when.

Cookie Parker wrote:There are only about 35 million of them, but they take up most of the airwaves. Look at Palin, Perry, Cain, Cantor, Paul Ryan, all those who are "born agains".

TexasBlue wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:There are only about 35 million of them, but they take up most of the airwaves. Look at Palin, Perry, Cain, Cantor, Paul Ryan, all those who are "born agains".

Carter was born again, too.

I lived under Bush and Perry in Texas. None of them governed as a fundy. I could care less if someone is "born again" or if they were an atheist. If they can govern and keep their beliefs out of government, then it's all good.

Code:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/i/ivins-shrub.html

Bush's second masterstroke has been to straddle the divide between the Christian right and the economic conservatives in the Republican Party, and that is a doozy of a split. In Texas, the Republican Party is owned by the Christian right: the party chair, the vice chairs, and everybody on down. When they won in 1994 they kicked out all the old-guard Texas Republicans, those in the school of George Bush the Elder-somewhat patrician, WASP, faintly elitist or Eastern. On the Christian right, such folks are known sneeringly as "country club Republicans." Republicans don't like to talk about class, but there's clearly a class subtext to their internal fights.

W. Bush is himself a born-again Christian who wants a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, although he seldom mentions that in front of a general audience. During his father's presidential campaigns, W. Bush was detailed to handle the Christian right, so he has years of experience in working with them. In addition, Rove has positioned him carefully toward the Christian right on a series of nasty but largely symbolic issues in the Texas Legislature.

On the other hand, if Bush were perceived as being a creature of the Christian right, he'd have a hard time in a general election, so the masterful straddle has been keeping a moderate face on the Texas Republican Party while keeping the Christian right happy. Bush's record is actually more to the right on social issues than his image suggests, and that includes some of his more eye-popping appointees to what would be a cabinet if we had a cabinet form of government in Texas, which we don't.


Of Bush's credentials as an economic conservative, there is no question at all-he owes his political life to big corporate money; he's a CEO's wet dream. He carries their water, he's stumpbroke-however you put it, George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. We don't think this is a consequence of political calculation; it is more a consequence of his life experience, political thinking, and party affiliation. We can find no evidence that it has ever do what occurred to him to question whether it wise to big business wants. He is perfectly comfortable, perfectly at home, doing the bidding of big bidness. These are his friends, and he takes care of his friends-sign of a smart politician. That this matches up nicely with his major campaign contributions is a happy synergy for Governor Bush.

Cookie Parker wrote:Except for the undo influence the religion has on government policies like abortion and gay marriages. Would you not see that as indicating a religious position in the republican tea party?

TexasBlue wrote:


This is what I mean by blanket generalizations. It really needs to stop... and stop now.

Arx Ferrum wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:


This is what I mean by blanket generalizations. It really needs to stop... and stop now.

My apologies, TB.

My excuse: I was just trying to point out the horribly faulty reasoning that leads to stereotyping and prejudice.

You are right to call this to a halt.

TexasBlue wrote:

Arx Ferrum wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:


This is what I mean by blanket generalizations. It really needs to stop... and stop now.

My apologies, TB.

My excuse: I was just trying to point out the horribly faulty reasoning that leads to stereotyping and prejudice.

You are right to call this to a halt.

No need to apologize. You were being facetious. I have yet to see generalizations made by you.

To all: If I start to make blanket generalizations about the left, how is that going to sit with you all? Not good, I can imagine.

It needs to stop.

That said, if one wants to make a point about an individual with proof about the said point, then all is good. I don't care what side it comes from or points to. If it's a verifiable point, then that's the case.

A gathering of religious conservatives drew nearly all the GOP presidential hopefuls to a single stage, a claim that a South Carolina debate and a well-publicized forum in New Hampshire couldn't make about their recent events.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Friday in Washington, D.C.

By Win McNamee, Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Friday in Washington, D.C.

Enlarge

By Win McNamee, Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Friday in Washington, D.C.
Ads by Google
Epson WorkForce® ProWorld's Fastest 2-sided Printer
Explore Epson's new WorkForce Pro.Epson.com/Workforce
National Debt SolutionYour Congressman Does
Not Want You To Readwww.TheGoldStandardNow.org
Ron Paul for President?Would you support Ron Paul
for president? Vote in poll.www.newsmax.com

The Faith and Freedom Coalition's two-day conference proved that the religious right still plays a major role in the nominating process, even if it's less organized than during the Christian Coalition's heyday and economic issues are dominating the early campaign.

The gathering was a tryout for candidates hoping to fill a void left by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The Southern Baptist minister won the 2008 Iowa caucus but is not running this time.

Most of the candidates spent more time on money issues than on spiritual matters on the opening day of the conference Friday. But they generally portrayed the federal debt and health care policies as moral concerns.

Cookie Parker wrote:I don't think you can say that the religious right does NOT play a dominant role in the republican party.

Cookie Parker wrote:All you hear from the news reports of the republican presidential campaign is "the religious rights evangelicals won't accept this person or that person".

Cookie Parker wrote:To say that born agains are not a major factor in the republican party is not being honest. Do you really believe anyone could win the nomination if the born agains didn't vote for them?

Cookie Parker wrote:But they have...we no longer fund Planned Parenthood. We no longer allow Medicaid to cover abortions

Cookie Parker wrote:and we don't allow the military to give abortions to female soldiers who are raped in wars.

TexasBlue wrote:

Cookie Parker wrote:But they have...we no longer fund Planned Parenthood. We no longer allow Medicaid to cover abortions

Good. I'm not on either side of the abortion fence at all, but I despise the idea that my tax money is used for this shit.

Cookie Parker wrote:and we don't allow the military to give abortions to female soldiers who are raped in wars.

Got something to back that up? I never heard that before.



Here's what Planned Parenthood is.........

The military is not a safe place for women. It’s not enemy fire that they should be concerned about, however. It’s their fellow servicemen. Almost one out of every three women serving their country will be sexually assaulted. This number alone is highly disturbing, but to add insult to a very real injury, Congress has declined to vote on a rule that currently prohibits women in the military from terminating a pregnancy stemming from a rape.


This is not to say they could not pay for the procedure out of their own pocket but it will not be covered by their government insurance. By way of comparison, civilian government employees are eligible to have a rape pregnancy terminated under their insurance. Essentially, our servicewomen, who fight, bleed and die for their country, have been told that they have less rights than civilians.

Congress’ behavior is even worse. Via ThinkProgress:

The Senate’s cowardice in refusing to even bring the amendment to a vote is also disappointing. Declining to vote on a measure is a sneaky tactic that effectively kills the amendment, but allows senators to avoid going on the record denying rights to service members. Earlier this year a Republican-led House committee also shot down a (similar) Democratic measure.

Women’s health is under attack in this country. The conservative majority in the House of Representatives is trying to force through bill H.R. 3, legislature that will cut Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics under the guise of “no federal funding for abortion.” On March 17, an addition to this bill was revealed that could force the IRS to interrogate women about whether they chose to abort because of rape or incest in the cases that they used any money saved through tax breaks or tax credits to pay for said abortion – money that the GOP typically says belongs to the citizen, not the government. Meanwhile, in Georgia, legislature has been written that would mandate criminal investigation of miscarriages.

To those who subscribe to logic, these measures are absurd and regressive. Planned Parenthood uses no federal money for abortions. Rather, the GOP is seeking to infringe upon women’s autonomy and right to make her own reproductive decisions. This regime would like to take us back to a time when the women most in need of information, education and health services were unable to find a place that is affordable and reliable. Planned Parenthood is not in the business of convincing women to have abortions; rather, Planned Parenthood exists to educate young women and men about the ways to have sex safely and responsibly and provide preventative care, ranging from cancer screenings to STI testing.

My mother often says “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and nowhere is this more true than in a woman’s body. Breast and cervical cancer screenings save lives. For many people who do not subscribe to a binary gender or sexuality, Planned Parenthood is a safe, nonjudgmental place to go for vital information. For poor women, Planned Parenthood is the only healthcare they can afford when their jobs offer no benefits. It is also notable that Planned Parenthood offers testicular cancer screening for men.

Throughout this nation’s history, minorities, women and the impoverished have faced discrimination and lack of representation. Attempting to cut Title X funding is an attack on poor minority women above all – straight middle class women have access to insurance and doctors and always have. Even before the passing of Roe v. Wade, women of means could obtain safe abortions. This legislation has the potential to make unplanned pregnancy – and abortion – more common and more dangerous. The infant mortality rate in the United States is higher than that in Cuba with six out of every 1,000 live births resulting in the child dying, according to data provided by the CIA World Fact Book.