Two Nations Under God--awesome article

Sociology > Education > Two Nations Under God--awesome article

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	"Mjkenoyer"
Date:	04 Nov 2004 01:34:53 PM
Object:	Two Nations Under God--awesome article

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 4, 2004
Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health...
I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself. I did that
yesterday, asking myself this: Why didn't I feel totally depressed
after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis, or even when George
W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why did I wake up feeling deeply troubled
yesterday?
Answer: whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush were over what
was the right policy. There was much he ultimately did that I ended up
admiring. And when George W. Bush was elected four years ago on a
platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle,
I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled
me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of
an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just
favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind
of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we
disagree on what America is.
Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line
between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers
should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science? And, most important, is it a country whose president
mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us
from one another and from the world?
At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real
problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another
level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly
that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and
partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social
issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we
were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as
if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional
Convention broke out.
The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent
war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Mr. Bush held onto the
same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing
had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his
performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were
on.
This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet
anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and
Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read
The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact
same way.
My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is
not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith.
It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to
promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.
"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and
spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University
political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a
party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral
and spiritual yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in
domestic policy and foreign affairs."
I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics: Never put
yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country
fails. This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to
fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a
comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed
into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can
win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Mr. Bush has a mandate for his
far right policies. Yes, he does have a mandate, but he also has a
date - a date with history. If Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq,
forge a solution for dealing with our entitlements crisis - which can
be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy
- upgrade America's competitiveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear
and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he
used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more
tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history
will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he has.
.

User: "Scott Marquardt"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 03:11:04 PM

Mjkenoyer opined thusly on Nov 4:

Well, yeah. But that's not news. It's only been brought to your attention
because you hadn't imagined, hitherto, that the benighted imaginers of
Something Else were capable of exercising their franchise. Perhaps you
thought they'd apply some kind of "religious test" on themselves, and
obligingly recognize how unworthy they are to vote?

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make?

In 11 states, at least, no. I believe that's what Kerry supported -- the
right of states to make these decisions.

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

Which remains a disingenuous casting of the dispute. If the unborn is
deemed worthy of protection in law, then the "choice" to kill it is
logically ruled out, except in circumstances that broach heroic peril to
the mother (already well recognized in law in many matters, not just
abortion).
As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement. Pro-life
is not principally against women's choices, and only as an afterthought
concerned with whether the unborn should be protected. The former does not
in the least imply the latter, whereas the latter certainly implies the
former. It's this ineluctable logic that explains why pro-choice people
resort to disingenuous attributions, rather than acknowledge precisely what
the pro-life argument really is.
I think Americans are beginning to see through that.

Is it a country where the line
between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers
should be inviolate?

It'd be great to hear this spoken of in constitutional language. One thing
I've noticed is that those who fret about religion so rarely evoke actual
constitutional language. It's uncomfortable, I think. They apparently
imagine that the courts are obliged to enforce pet interpretive nuances
concerning extralegal documents from the founders' personal correspondence.
I think that's as illegitimate from liberals as it is from conservatives
who use such material to foster the notion of a "Christian nation."

Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science?

Ethics has always been informed by ultimate values, and religion is a
perfectly legitimate source of such values. Religious convictions concerned
with theft, murder, and commercial dishonesty are not ruled inadmissible
merely on account of that pedigree. And even if they were, the fact that
there remain secular arguments on behalf of the same proscriptions means
that it's practically impossible to discriminate between "legitimate
secular" advocates and "disenfranchised religous" advocates. The
tendentious secularist argument reduces to bigotry, plain and simple.
If the writer means that ethics should not trump science, God (or not god)
help us.
We disagree on the ethical issues. Don't imagine that attempting to
disenfranchise people whose ethics are religiously informed -- but who
remain capable of articulating such an ethic on secular grounds -- is going
to empower your political cohort. It won't.

And, most important, is it a country whose president
mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us
from one another and from the world?

It's a bit arbitrary to blame one side for division within the country. The
division is real. Imagining that a president can unite us on issues we have
to do some hard work on ourselves, is dangerously messianic and frankly
utopian -- succinctly, freakin' stupid.
You want unity with a pro-life neighbor? Get busy. Don't count on a
federation's CEO to wave a magic wand and make the scary yahoos go away.

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real
problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another
level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly
that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and
partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social
issues

Of course. Just as gays are attempting to push social issues. You don't
think what happened in San Francisco this past year was a "push?" Good
grief. Of course *both* sides are strenuously advocating for their
positions. That's what people do. In the case of the present political
reality, conservatives have the upper hand in some ways, and liberals
lament that. That too is normal. And mutatis freakin' mutandis if it were
the other way around, right? No, wrong. You wouldn't be writing this if
secularist bigots had a hegemony. You'd likely be pressing for something
like freakin' France, where atheists can wear headscarves because for them
it's not a religious token, whereas Muslims can't because it is. Geez.

and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we
were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president.

Hyperbole appealing to the politics of fear. ;-D
Rewriting the Constitution is a protracted process requiring ratification.

I felt as
if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional
Convention broke out.

And what's wrong with that? Re-writing the Constitution is itself a
constitutional provision.

The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent
war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Mr. Bush held onto the
same basic core of states that he won four years ago - as if nothing
had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his
performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were
on.

Sure. Why not? I'm not granting that that was the predominant impetus
behind Republican votes, but if that's the case for many, so be it. Are you
forgetting the huge "anybody but Bush" mantra of 2004? Mutatis mutandis. So
what?

This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet
anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and
Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read
The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact
same way.

LMAO
That's a hugely funny and possibly realistic prospect -- though for my
part, I've never watched Fox News, whereas I frequently read the Times.

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is
not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith.
It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to
promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad.

I think they'd argue that some things rightly are not tolerated. That's
true of all of us on many issues. We're all "intolerant." We pass laws
proscribing certain acts -- some dire and consequential, others seemingly
trite. We all behave in certain social ways, eschewing things that may be
perfectly legal but which we ourselves simply haven't the stomach for (we
turn off the TV, for example, when we hear blatant bias from a news
source). The question is whether a given thing falls within the penumbra of
legal tolerance or not. And that's a question whose answer we sometimes
differ on. Because this is a democracy, we argue the merits of our
respective views. We don't try to assert that it's a "problem" when people
we disagree with do so, and we don't beg the question by assuming that the
"division" is their fault, or that the "intolerance" is obviously rank
bigotry.

I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.

Tell you what -- do just one freakin' thing and I'll vote Democrat. Become
pro-life. That's it. That's all. Make the unborn protected in law and
welcome in life. I'm willing to hold my nose for other views I disrespect
in the party's platform. Do just that one thing, and I'll freakin' switch
parties.
Yes, it's that important. It's as important as slavery was. It's the same
issue. Well, not really. Dem's don't grant the unborn 3/5 human status, as
they did with Blacks. :-/

"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and
spiritual sources of American politics," noted the Harvard University
political theorist Michael J. Sandel. "They will not recover as a
party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral
and spiritual yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in
domestic policy and foreign affairs."

And be honest about the springs from which pro-life convictions actually
flow, instead of trying to tar pro-life as being anti-woman. The democratic
unwillingness to recognize that a right to life is logically prior to the
right of anyone else to end that life, is the single most damning
indictment of liberal "morality." Dems should acknowledge this and move on
to simply argue that the unborn are not entitled to such protection as
pro-life people support. That would be an honest argument. But I think Dems
know it's also less influential than hysterical braying about conservative
"hatred" of women.
But for my part, I think Americans are getting wise to that.

I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics: Never put
yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country
fails. This column will absolutely not be rooting for George Bush to
fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a
comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed
into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can
win with a positive message that connects with America's heartland.

Hey -- all you have to do to get my vote is sacrifice one issue. Just one.
The consequence? Women will need to let their unborn children live. That's
all. Unless, of course, the "heroic peril" issue comes into play.
Hey, you know something? If all the aborted children had been born, we'd
have a bigger workforce whose taxes would support the Boomers whose
generation gave us abortion on demand. Fascinating stuff. The irony is that
in retrospect, there would have been two equally effective solutions to the
SS problems we face: Boomers' parents should have had the "right to
choose", thereby reducing the number of boomers -- or Boomers should have
NOT had the "right to choose" -- thereby ensuring a generation who could
pay for their retirement.
Interesting how the fertility cult works -- in old days, child sacrifices
lent their perpetrators the dying life's powers; in modern days, those who
kill their unborn children will be glad of others' children growing up to
support them with taxes. Isn't it great?

Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Mr. Bush has a mandate for his
far right policies. Yes, he does have a mandate, but he also has a
date - a date with history. If Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq,
forge a solution for dealing with our entitlements crisis - which can
be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy
- upgrade America's competitiveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear
and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he
used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more
tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history
will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he has.

Agreed.
--
Scott
.

User: "A Warm Fuzzy"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 04:40:41 PM

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1imme6x2bzvjc.dlg@marquardts.org...

Mjkenoyer opined thusly on Nov 4:

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make?

In 11 states, at least, no. I believe that's what Kerry supported -- the
right of states to make these decisions.

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

Dishonestly? Have you ever visited any of the pro-life sites out there? In
some of the largest ones out there they advocate not only a complete end to
abortion regardless of the circumstances but also a ban on some forms of
birth control and a restriction of others because they promote behavior that
they find sin-ful. If that's not anti-choice, then tell me what is? One of
Bush's appointments on a women's health panel gained noteriety because he
was a gynocologist who would refuse to proscribe birth control for unmarried
women and wrote a book outlining what forms of birth control should be
banned along with abortion. John Ashcroft himself fought for years wile
governor to get many forms of birth control reclassified as abortifacients
in the hopes that one day abortion would be illegal and these would be made
so also.
there will never be any hope of rapprochement. Pro-life

is not principally against women's choices, and only as an afterthought
concerned with whether the unborn should be protected. The former does not
in the least imply the latter, whereas the latter certainly implies the
former. It's this ineluctable logic that explains why pro-choice people
resort to disingenuous attributions, rather than acknowledge precisely
what
the pro-life argument really is.

I challenge you to actually read what is being bandied about behind the
scenes at these groups. You could possibly (gasp!) change your mind.
.

User: "Scott Marquardt"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 05:08:33 PM

A Warm Fuzzy opined thusly on Nov 4:

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1imme6x2bzvjc.dlg@marquardts.org...

Mjkenoyer opined thusly on Nov 4:

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make?

In 11 states, at least, no. I believe that's what Kerry supported -- the
right of states to make these decisions.

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

Sure. But that doesn't address my point in the least. You're simply
pointing out that some pro-life people are as extreme as some pro-choice
folks. Right? I should think that would have been obvious. There's a
lunatic fringe on both sides, right? Or do you deny that?

If that's not anti-choice, then tell me what is?

Actually, I'll credit you with more precision than first glance commended.
If you were to weigh the labels you choose in a balance:
pro-choice / anti-life
pro-life / anti-choice
....there's a sense in which your label is quite right. Someone who believes
the unborn should be protected by law and welcome in life cannot be
"anti-choice" because the inherent obligation to protect such life trumps
the "choice" to destroy it. I'm not "anti-choice," in other words, on
account of being opposed to murder statutes on the books today. The
protections afforded the born trump any "choice" to kill them.
However, in the case of some of the issues you're concerned with -- let us
say birth control pills -- this may not be the case. An unborn life is not
at issue, merely a moral preference for how a woman should conduct her own
affairs, quite apart from the presence of any other unique human life
deserving some form of protection. In such cases, protection of the unborn
is not the primary concern, so the concern is not properly pro-life -- it's
indeed "anti-choice."
Some methods of birth control arguably destroy unique life, however, so the
argument in such cases would again be a genuine "pro-life" issue. The
question would be whether a human in the form of a single cell should be
protected. In general, I think there's a less sympathetic reception to
pro-life views the closer we get to conception -- but the argument is still
about a human life at that point, and whether it merits protection in law.
It's still not a "choice" issue until the eligibility of this life for
protection is a settled issue.
Of course, this is moot at present, because the USSC has ruled that no
protections may be afforded the unborn during early pregnancy.

One of
Bush's appointments on a women's health panel gained noteriety because he
was a gynocologist who would refuse to proscribe birth control for unmarried
women and wrote a book outlining what forms of birth control should be
banned along with abortion. John Ashcroft himself fought for years wile
governor to get many forms of birth control reclassified as abortifacients
in the hopes that one day abortion would be illegal and these would be made
so also.

Sure. But why would that be any more shocking than that some people kill
unborn children? Geez. ;-)
Perspective sure makes a difference, doesn't it?
I notice that Oprah was showing a picture of a child in the womb this
morning, and commending a book describing life between conception and
birth. Oddly enough, there was an awkward moment when the image was shown,
as if some "pro-choice" rule had been broken. -- a strange silence. It was
really weird.

there will never be any hope of rapprochement. Pro-life
is not principally against women's choices, and only as an afterthought
concerned with whether the unborn should be protected. The former does not
in the least imply the latter, whereas the latter certainly implies the
former. It's this ineluctable logic that explains why pro-choice people
resort to disingenuous attributions, rather than acknowledge precisely
what
the pro-life argument really is.

I challenge you to actually read what is being bandied about behind the
scenes at these groups. You could possibly (gasp!) change your mind.

Why would an extremist group that wants to infringe on a person's right to
control their own body, be any force in persuading me that the more
moderate view -- that we really shouldn't kill unborn children, and in fact
that a good starting place would be to not crush the skulls of full term
infants after they're partially out of the birth canal -- is wrong?
That would be like saying that I might reject the notion of a Palestinian
state, provided I would only illume my brain by becoming acquainted with
Hamas suicide bombers.
--
Scott
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 12:09:31 AM

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

There never was nor will be any hope of rapprochement. This is a
battle to the ultimate destruction of one view of society or the
other, and both sides know it.
The liberal point of view is that as long as people who are "pro-life"
can approve of a president being proud of activities killing 100,000
Iraqis in order to capture one dictator, being proud of protecting
Americans from terrorism by encouraging it in another country
incapable of protecting itself, there can never be any hope of
rapprochement.

I think Americans are beginning to see through that.

Nope. Only the 50% that were already in that camp.

Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science?

Ethics has always been informed by ultimate values, and religion is a
perfectly legitimate source of such values.

He is talking about evolution vs. "creation science"

I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.

On the other hand, I know women who would fit very nicely in the
conservative camp, except that they will NEVER vote for anyone who is
anti-choice. No matter what other issues are involved, that one is a
fundamental do-or-die one for them.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 02:54:18 AM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:jspoo058pgpqtc063qv6ns0vbe1f4onke0@4ax.com...

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

There never was nor will be any hope of rapprochement.

Because of bigots like you.
.

User: "Cleopatra"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	07 Nov 2004 03:36:31 PM

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<jspoo058pgpqtc063qv6ns0vbe1f4onke0@4ax.com>...

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

There never was nor will be any hope of rapprochement. This is a
battle to the ultimate destruction of one view of society or the
other, and both sides know it.

You may be quite right here, Bob. To the extent that the democrat
party persists in embracing secular humanism, and in the process
willfully discounting people of faith as not deserving of the
franchise, this social/political gulf can be seen as a prelude to
civil strife and perhaps even civil war.
But truth be told, sir, it's your crowd now attempting to impose their
thoroughly atheistic worldview on a country still rooted in the
Judeo/Christian ethic, bleating constantly about separation of church
and state, words found nowhere in the Constitution, BTW. These words
were extracted from Jefferson's comments to a small Connecticut
congregation and have lately been twisted to suggest freedom *from*
religion as opposed to freedom *of* religion. Examine the
establishment clause. Have you lately noticed the government
establishing a national religion and subsidizing same?

The liberal point of view is that as long as people who are "pro-life"
can approve of a president being proud of activities killing 100,000
Iraqis in order to capture one dictator, being proud of protecting
Americans from terrorism by encouraging it in another country
incapable of protecting itself, there can never be any hope of
rapprochement.

The monumental hypocrisy of you Bolshevist baby killers is truly
astonishing. Here we have a crowd of murderous bastards who have
actively supported the slaughter of some 32 million infants in the
last 30 years, bitterly resisting even those attempts to curb 3rd
trimester and partial birth abortions, now lecturing the rest of us on
*enemy* casualties in a just war.
Sir, for people like you to actively support and encourage monstrous
crimes like this to the tune of over 100,000 infants slaughtered every
month in this country, and then insist that you have the moral high
ground for opposing Iraqi casualties is absofuckinglutely beyond
belief. The only reason you leftist frauds bleat on about casualties
over there is to make a freakin' political statement, for if you
opposed the deaths of innocent souls purely as a matter of principle,
30 million babies in the last 30 years wouldn't have been tossed into
medical dumpsters. Go to hell, sir.
Cleopatra
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	08 Nov 2004 01:20:54 PM

(Cleopatra)
wrote:

Bob LeChevalier <

> wrote in message news:<jspoo058pgpqtc063qv6ns0vbe1f4onke0@4ax.com>...

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

There never was nor will be any hope of rapprochement. This is a
battle to the ultimate destruction of one view of society or the
other, and both sides know it.

The only problem with your statements is that I am a reborn Christian
who has not embraced secular humanism, and I do not have an atheistic
worldview.
There are lots of phrases not found in the constitution that are still
fundamental principles of our government system. "Separation of
powers" being an example. "Separation of church and state" is a short
way of referring to the two 1st amendment religious clauses, and the
"no religious tests" clause in the main constitution, coupled with the
14th amendments extension of all federal individual rights as binding
on the states.

These words
were extracted from Jefferson's comments to a small Connecticut
congregation and have lately been twisted to suggest freedom *from*
religion as opposed to freedom *of* religion.

That is because the constitution provides freedom from religion *being
imposed with the aid of the government*

Examine the establishment clause. Have you lately noticed the government
establishing a national religion and subsidizing same?

The establishment clause doesn't refer to the government establishing
anything. Government cannot deal with religious establishments that
were established BY ANYONE.

My point is that neither side can really claim to be "pro life", which
leaves the question as being "pro choice" or "anti choice".

Sir, for people like you to actively support and encourage monstrous
crimes like this to the tune of over 100,000 infants slaughtered every
month in this country,

No infants are slaughtered in this country.

and then insist that you have the moral high
ground for opposing Iraqi casualties is absofuckinglutely beyond
belief.

I don't claim any moral high ground. We are all sinners, even the
most devout of Christians.

The only reason you leftist frauds bleat on about casualties
over there is to make a freakin' political statement, for if you
opposed the deaths of innocent souls purely as a matter of principle,
30 million babies in the last 30 years wouldn't have been tossed into
medical dumpsters. Go to hell, sir.

You'll be there first.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Scott Marquardt"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 12:53:54 AM

Bob LeChevalier opined thusly on Nov 6:

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

The jury's certainly out on that figure, inasmuch as the same study quite
problematically shows 200,000 deaths in Fallujah alone. Serious
methodological flaws.
Also, the study doesn't affirm 100,000 dead. It finds a 95% probability
that there are between 8000 and 194,000 dead (not counting Fallujah).

in order to capture one dictator,

Is that all we were doing? Can't be. That mission is certainly
accomplished; he's quite captured.

being proud of protecting
Americans from terrorism by encouraging it in another country
incapable of protecting itself, there can never be any hope of
rapprochement.

We're still there.
At any rate, whether the unborn deserves protection is an affirmation that
should depend on the good will of those who claim the high moral ground, I
would think. Imagining that the unborn are not entitled to protection
merely because their most vocal defenders are perceived as having ethical
problems on their own is not an advance in moral clarity. Any time abortion
advocates wish to make their putative compassion genuinely universal,
they're welcome to.

I think Americans are beginning to see through that.

Nope. Only the 50% that were already in that camp.

Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science?

Ethics has always been informed by ultimate values, and religion is a
perfectly legitimate source of such values.

He is talking about evolution vs. "creation science"

As I understand it, the "vs" is a bit of a false dichotomy. It's a
continuum. Many theists coopt evolution. For others, they're oil and water
as you indicate.

I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.

:::sigh:::
It would at least be nice if the issues were fairly represented. *If* a
human should be protected in law, *then* no one has a right to choose its
death. If a human should not be protected in law, then its death may be
chosen. That's the fundamental issue. No one has a right to take a life
that should have a right to life. If that life has no right to life, then
it is disposable.
The argument then reduces to whether such life should be accorded such
protection in law, or not. But let's not have rhetoric about how pro-life
people are anti-woman. Choice to kill is proscribed as a consequence of
right to life, not as an end in itself.
--
Scott
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 09:11:42 PM

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 0:53:54 -0600, Scott Marquardt wrote
(in message <ba0hyh324lhe.dlg@marquardts.org>):

Bob LeChevalier opined thusly on Nov 6:

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

As long as liberals dishonestly continue to cast pro-life Americans as
being anti-choice, there will never be any hope of rapprochement.

The jury's certainly out on that figure, inasmuch as the same study quite
problematically shows 200,000 deaths in Fallujah alone. Serious
methodological flaws.

Also, the study doesn't affirm 100,000 dead. It finds a 95% probability
that there are between 8000 and 194,000 dead (not counting Fallujah).

in order to capture one dictator,

Is that all we were doing? Can't be. That mission is certainly
accomplished; he's quite captured.

being proud of protecting
Americans from terrorism by encouraging it in another country
incapable of protecting itself, there can never be any hope of
rapprochement.

We're still there.

At any rate, whether the unborn

I hope that you understand - and I mean this in the nicest way - that you
appear to be insane, incapable of anything but Gibberish and totally
irrational so - as a charter member of Korzybski's Timebinding and Cake
Baking Society, I must bid you plonk.
++ Gray

deserves protection is an affirmation that
should depend on the good will of those who claim the high moral ground, I
would think. Imagining that the unborn are not entitled to protection
merely because their most vocal defenders are perceived as having ethical
problems on their own is not an advance in moral clarity. Any time abortion
advocates wish to make their putative compassion genuinely universal,
they're welcome to.

I think Americans are beginning to see through that.

Nope. Only the 50% that were already in that camp.

Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science?

Ethics has always been informed by ultimate values, and religion is a
perfectly legitimate source of such values.

He is talking about evolution vs. "creation science"

As I understand it, the "vs" is a bit of a false dichotomy. It's a
continuum. Many theists coopt evolution. For others, they're oil and water
as you indicate.

I respect that
moral energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it for
different ends.

sigh:::

It would at least be nice if the issues were fairly represented. *If* a
human should be protected in law, *then* no one has a right to choose its
death. If a human should not be protected in law, then its death may be
chosen. That's the fundamental issue. No one has a right to take a life
that should have a right to life. If that life has no right to life, then
it is disposable.

The argument then reduces to whether such life should be accorded such
protection in law, or not. But let's not have rhetoric about how pro-life
people are anti-woman. Choice to kill is proscribed as a consequence of
right to life, not as an end in itself.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 08:49:38 PM

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

Tell you what -- do just one freakin' thing and I'll vote Democrat. Become
pro-life.

Like Paul Hill? That would be the Reverend Mister Paul J Hill who is roasting
and toasting in the hell of his own belief structure. The boy is burning in
the Christian version of a 1,000 degrees C afterlife (aka the ninth circle of
hell). Paul Hill was a murderer who killed because he was "pro-life". There's
something wrong with this logic. Especially since the (alleged) Christian
killed for Jesus.
Ah, yes. Murder because one is "pro-life".
-----------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/p/pa/paul_jennings_hill.html>
In addition to the two murders, Hill wounded June Barrett, the wife of James
Barrett, in the 1994 incident.
According to Time magazine, Hill left behind a manuscript manifesto
describing how to stalk and kill abortion doctors. Hill's backers promised
him they would have it published.
Hill was the first person executed in the United States for anti-abortion
violence. At the time of Hill's death, Michael Griffin was serving a life
sentence for the murder of an abortion doctor in Pensacola in 1993, and James
Kopp was in prison for the killing of a physician in Buffalo, New York. Eric
Rudolph was awaiting trial for a 1998 bombing that killed a police officer at
an Alabama abortion clinic. John Salvi had committed suicide in prison two
years after killing two receptionists in 1994 in Massachusetts.
-----------------------------------------------------------

That's it. That's all. Make the unborn protected in law and

welcome in life.

Okay; as soon as you are willing to file charges against God for
committing more abortions than all other abortionists combined.
Are you willing to sentence God the Murdering Abortionist to Death?
Or, mebbe, we've gotten God and Satan mixed up and all these supposed
"Christians" are, in reality, worshipping and getting all their ideas from
Satan. That would sure explain a buncha things.

I'm willing to hold my nose for other views I disrespect

in the party's platform. Do just that one thing, and I'll freakin' switch
parties.

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 0:09:31 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Or as a woman remarked to me many years ago: "A person who would take away my
power to get an abortion is stating that he is my emotional, mental and
physical master. Remember the entity that is reponsible for the most
abortions is g(G)od(s). When this "master wanna be" talks this G(g)od(s)
thingie(s) into not providing spontaneous abortions, this "Control
Freak/Master/Limp Penis" is welcome to talk to me."
God is the ultimate abortionist.
++ Gray /the parens are mine, of course/
.

User: "Scott Marquardt"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 10:55:54 PM

Gray Shockley opined thusly on Nov 6:

Scott Marquardt <wasREMOVEket5@hotmail.com> wrote:

Tell you what -- do just one freakin' thing and I'll vote Democrat. Become
pro-life.

Like Paul Hill?

Was he an obvious advocate of respect for life?

That's it. That's all. Make the unborn protected in law and
welcome in life.

Okay; as soon as you are willing to file charges against God for
committing more abortions than all other abortionists combined.

What does God have to do with a secular society's debate concerning the
status of the unborn?

Are you willing to sentence God the Murdering Abortionist to Death?

Since everything that lives dies, you might as well simply argue that God
kills everything. That's theologically naive, but it would carry the force
of your argument to its logical conclusion.

Or, mebbe, we've gotten God and Satan mixed up and all these supposed
"Christians" are, in reality, worshipping and getting all their ideas from
Satan. That would sure explain a buncha things.

Just wondering -- is this supposed to be some proxy for genuine argument?

Or as a woman remarked to me many years ago: "A person who would take away my
power to get an abortion is stating that he is my emotional, mental and
physical master.

Not at all. The moral standing of a choice to take a life depends on what a
society recognizes concerning that life. In the United States, the issue
was never settled in deliberative bodies, but by an activist court that
didn't even rule on the status of the unborn, despite that life's logically
prior moral claim to any choice in regard of its death.
Do you understand this?

Remember the entity that is reponsible for the most
abortions is g(G)od(s). When this "master wanna be" talks this G(g)od(s)
thingie(s) into not providing spontaneous abortions, this "Control
Freak/Master/Limp Penis" is welcome to talk to me."

It's fascinating how those who approve the right to kill unborn life evoke
God, when any argument for or against protections of the unborn need to be
struck on secular grounds.
--
Scott
.

User: "Steven Litvintchouk"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 05:28:35 PM

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences
and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil marriage as a
private contract. You need a marriage license from the GOVERNMENT. And
it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the voters
seemed to object to.

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems believe
YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion without your
knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.

User: "Child"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 05:44:04 PM

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

So the government gets to choose who should marry who? Where does the
right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop letting
bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses? How about
bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems believe
YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion without your
knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do hope that she
will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need one. She would have
my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it. Remember that
the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as the religious
beliefs of their parents.
.

User: "Glenn and Betsy"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 06:15:29 PM

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil marriage as

private contract. You need a marriage license from the GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the voters
seemed to object to.

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems believe
YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion without your
knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do hope that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need one. She would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it. Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as the religious
beliefs of their parents.

Not sure this has only to do with religion, Child. Would you want your
minor daughter to have her wisdom teeth pulled without you knowing? How
about an appendectomy? Breast implants? Lasik surgery? Why should an
abortion be ok?
Betsy
.

User: "Child"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 06:18:03 PM

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the voters
seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who? Where does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop letting
bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses? How about
bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems

believe

YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion without your
knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do hope that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need one. She

would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it. Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as the

religious

beliefs of their parents.

It has to do with religious feelings about abortion. My kid will get my
permission if they need an abortion. But what about someone elses kid - a
kid who wants to go to college, a kid who has a bright future planned which
doesnt' involve a baby right now? A kid whose parents won't give that
permission? The permission issue is tied up with the right for the kid to
have her own religious beliefs.
.

User: "Glenn and Betsy"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 06:39:39 PM

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olhmvrj9nsb8c@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in

message

news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my

health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil

marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the

GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the

voters

seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who? Where

does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop

letting

bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses? How

about

bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems

believe

YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion without

your

knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do hope

that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need one. She

would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it.

Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as the

religious

beliefs of their parents.

Not sure this has only to do with religion, Child. Would you want

your

minor daughter to have her wisdom teeth pulled without you knowing?

How

about an appendectomy? Breast implants? Lasik surgery? Why should an
abortion be ok?

It has to do with religious feelings about abortion. My kid will get my
permission if they need an abortion. But what about someone elses kid -

kid who wants to go to college, a kid who has a bright future planned

which

doesnt' involve a baby right now? A kid whose parents won't give that
permission? The permission issue is tied up with the right for the kid

have her own religious beliefs.

I don't think anyone is even talking about "permission". We are just
talking about the right of a parent to *know* that their daughter is having
an abortion.
One of the things that upsets me as a Conservative is the way many
Liberals paint all other parents as child-abusing, uncompassionate, unloving
parents. They think all Christian parents would beat the living hell out of
their poor, misunderstood, downtrodden daughters. That only *progressive*,
forward thinking folks such as themselves could possibly understand what
their daughter is going through. That is just plain bunk.
The vast majority of parents, no matter what their political leaning, love
their children more than their own selves. They want what is best for their
daughters and want to be included in any medical decision that has to be
made. Many daughters underestimate how their parents will react and feel
toward an unplanned pregnancy. Many parents would just like to be in the
loop with the decision and help their daughter to be able to think it
through clearly, looking at all alternatives. I believe many women decide
extermination of their fetus is the best option because they don't know how
much support would be available if they would just ask.
I don't think abortion should be any different than any other medical
intervention for minors.
Betsy
.

User: "Child"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 07:23:28 PM

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZzid.364648$D%.357817@attbi_s51...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olhmvrj9nsb8c@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in

message

news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my

health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil

marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the

GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the

voters

seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who? Where

does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop

letting

bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses? How

about

bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems

believe

YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion

without

your

knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do

hope

that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need one.

She

would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it.

Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as the

religious

beliefs of their parents.

Not sure this has only to do with religion, Child. Would you want

your

minor daughter to have her wisdom teeth pulled without you knowing?

How

about an appendectomy? Breast implants? Lasik surgery? Why should an
abortion be ok?

It has to do with religious feelings about abortion. My kid will get

permission if they need an abortion. But what about someone elses

kid -

kid who wants to go to college, a kid who has a bright future planned

which

doesnt' involve a baby right now? A kid whose parents won't give that
permission? The permission issue is tied up with the right for the

kid

have her own religious beliefs.

I don't think anyone is even talking about "permission". We are just
talking about the right of a parent to *know* that their daughter is

having

an abortion.

One of the things that upsets me as a Conservative is the way many
Liberals paint all other parents as child-abusing, uncompassionate,

unloving

parents. They think all Christian parents would beat the living hell out

their poor, misunderstood, downtrodden daughters. That only *progressive*,
forward thinking folks such as themselves could possibly understand what
their daughter is going through. That is just plain bunk.

Um, where in my post did you read anything about anyone beating their kids?
I simply stated that many people wouldn't allow their kid to get an
abortion, even if its what she really felt would be best for her and the
baby.

The vast majority of parents, no matter what their political leaning,

love

their children more than their own selves. They want what is best for

their

daughters and want to be included in any medical decision that has to be
made. Many daughters underestimate how their parents will react and feel
toward an unplanned pregnancy. Many parents would just like to be in the
loop with the decision and help their daughter to be able to think it
through clearly, looking at all alternatives. I believe many women decide
extermination of their fetus is the best option because they don't know

how

much support would be available if they would just ask.

I don't think abortion should be any different than any other medical
intervention for minors.

and I still disagree. but you absolutely welcome to your opinion! I just
am not sure if you meant to imply that _I_ said that christian parents would
beat the living hell out of their daughters.
How about the ability to get birth control?
.

User: "Glenn and Betsy"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	05 Nov 2004 01:28:59 AM

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10ollhmh3m62220@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZzid.364648$D%.357817@attbi_s51...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olhmvrj9nsb8c@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote

message

news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my

health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's

sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil

marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the

GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that

the

voters

seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who?

Where

does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop

letting

bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses?

How

about

bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal

Dems

believe

YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion

without

your

knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I do

hope

that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need

one.

She

would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it.

Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as

the

religious

beliefs of their parents.

Not sure this has only to do with religion, Child. Would you

want

your

minor daughter to have her wisdom teeth pulled without you

knowing?

How

about an appendectomy? Breast implants? Lasik surgery? Why

should an

abortion be ok?

It has to do with religious feelings about abortion. My kid will

get

permission if they need an abortion. But what about someone elses

kid -

kid who wants to go to college, a kid who has a bright future

planned

which

doesnt' involve a baby right now? A kid whose parents won't give

that

permission? The permission issue is tied up with the right for

the

kid

have her own religious beliefs.

I don't think anyone is even talking about "permission". We are just
talking about the right of a parent to *know* that their daughter is

having

an abortion.

One of the things that upsets me as a Conservative is the way many
Liberals paint all other parents as child-abusing, uncompassionate,

unloving

parents. They think all Christian parents would beat the living hell

out

their poor, misunderstood, downtrodden daughters. That only

*progressive*,

forward thinking folks such as themselves could possibly understand

what

their daughter is going through. That is just plain bunk.

Um, where in my post did you read anything about anyone beating their

kids?

I simply stated that many people wouldn't allow their kid to get an
abortion, even if its what she really felt would be best for her and the
baby.

The vast majority of parents, no matter what their political

leaning,

love

their children more than their own selves. They want what is best for

their

daughters and want to be included in any medical decision that has to

made. Many daughters underestimate how their parents will react and

feel

toward an unplanned pregnancy. Many parents would just like to be in

the

loop with the decision and help their daughter to be able to think it
through clearly, looking at all alternatives. I believe many women

decide

extermination of their fetus is the best option because they don't

know

how

much support would be available if they would just ask.

I don't think abortion should be any different than any other

medical

intervention for minors.

and I still disagree. but you absolutely welcome to your opinion! I

just

am not sure if you meant to imply that _I_ said that christian parents

would

beat the living hell out of their daughters.

I did not mean to imply that. But many people do actually believe that.

How about the ability to get birth control?

I think birth control should be readily available to anyone who wants it.
.

User: "Child"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	06 Nov 2004 11:02:57 PM

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%YFid.571002$8_6.339934@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10ollhmh3m62220@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZzid.364648$D%.357817@attbi_s51...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olhmvrj9nsb8c@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote

message

news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my

health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's

sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil

marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the

GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that

the

voters

seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who?

Where

does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we

stop

letting

bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses?

How

about

bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal

Dems

believe

YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER should be able to get an abortion

without

your

knowledge or approval. That bother you at all?

I have no children yet, but when my future kid is born, I

hope

that

she

will be able to get an abortion should she feel she need

one.

She

would

have

my permission if it came to that but she shouldn't need it.

Remember

that

the religious beliefs of a teenager may not be the same as

the

religious

beliefs of their parents.

Not sure this has only to do with religion, Child. Would you

want

your

minor daughter to have her wisdom teeth pulled without you

knowing?

How

about an appendectomy? Breast implants? Lasik surgery? Why

should an

abortion be ok?

It has to do with religious feelings about abortion. My kid will

get

permission if they need an abortion. But what about someone

elses

kid -

kid who wants to go to college, a kid who has a bright future

planned

which

doesnt' involve a baby right now? A kid whose parents won't give

that

permission? The permission issue is tied up with the right for

the

kid

have her own religious beliefs.

I don't think anyone is even talking about "permission". We are

just

talking about the right of a parent to *know* that their daughter is

having

an abortion.

One of the things that upsets me as a Conservative is the way many
Liberals paint all other parents as child-abusing, uncompassionate,

unloving

parents. They think all Christian parents would beat the living hell

out

their poor, misunderstood, downtrodden daughters. That only

*progressive*,

forward thinking folks such as themselves could possibly understand

what

their daughter is going through. That is just plain bunk.

Um, where in my post did you read anything about anyone beating their

kids?

I simply stated that many people wouldn't allow their kid to get an
abortion, even if its what she really felt would be best for her and

the

baby.

The vast majority of parents, no matter what their political

leaning,

love

their children more than their own selves. They want what is best for

their

daughters and want to be included in any medical decision that has to

made. Many daughters underestimate how their parents will react and

feel

toward an unplanned pregnancy. Many parents would just like to be in

the

loop with the decision and help their daughter to be able to think it
through clearly, looking at all alternatives. I believe many women

decide

extermination of their fetus is the best option because they don't

know

how

much support would be available if they would just ask.

I don't think abortion should be any different than any other

medical

intervention for minors.

and I still disagree. but you absolutely welcome to your opinion! I

just

am not sure if you meant to imply that _I_ said that christian parents

would

beat the living hell out of their daughters.

I did not mean to imply that. But many people do actually believe that.

How about the ability to get birth control?

I think birth control should be readily available to anyone who wants it.

Without parental permission? But its a medication that must be prescribed by
a doctor!
.

User: "Steven Litvintchouk"
Title: Re: Two Nations Under God--awesome article	04 Nov 2004 10:55:12 PM

Child wrote:

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZzid.364648$D%.357817@attbi_s51...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olhmvrj9nsb8c@corp.supernews.com...

"Glenn and Betsy" <b.fernley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lCzid.570059$8_6.153215@attbi_s04...

"Child" <dawg@alaskaSPAMFREE.com> wrote in message
news:10olfn8kbc58062@corp.supernews.com...

"Steven Litvintchouk" <

> wrote in

message

news:DWyid.14$_J2.5@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Mjkenoyer wrote:

Two Nations Under God
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: November 4, 2004

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my

health...

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual

preferences

and the marriage unions they want to make?

That's not how it works. You can't just enter into civil

marriage

private contract. You need a marriage license from the

GOVERNMENT.

And

it was issuing a government marriage license to gays that the

voters

seemed to object to.

So the government gets to choose who should marry who? Where

does

the

right of the government to decide that stop? Should we stop

letting

bi-racial couples get government issued marriage licenses? How

about

bi-religious couples?

Is it a country that allows
a woman to have control over her body?

You said you have children. Any daughters? The liberal Dems