Christian lead separatist movement

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Its a shame that people associate the Confederate States of America and slavery with secessionists and states rights to secede from the union.

So true. Though I feel that the southern States are demonized. What is never thoroughly analyzed is whether or not secession is legal. It is just assumed not to have been since "south was evil and wanted to prolong slavery" etc. Those are not valid arguments. Secession is a stand alone issue having nothing to do with motives for secession.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

E - so much wrong with that post.
Just for starters, let's look at who really cares about the poor and oppressed.
Studies have consistently shown that conservatives consistently give more to charity than liberals.
Just google it if you don't believe me.
It is easy to be compassionate with others money.
Oppression????
How much good has the war on poverty done in this country?
As has been stated, the Democrats really do love the poor, because they make more of them.

I commend giving to charities. Charities help people with immediate and pressing problems. But they do not help with long term issues.

My mother and father married young because my dad got my mom pregnant with my brother. My dad was then drafted and served in Vietnam. He came home with lots of issues and then they had me. They divorced when I was two years old after my brother was killed in a hit and run. My mother was grieving the death of my brother and being abandoned by my father with me, a child to care for. She struggled with depression. She had little to no education and couldn't afford to pay rent, bills, and expenses so she got on public assistance ADC. She was on welfare with food stamps, cash allotment, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. She was on this assistance until I was 12 years old and then she decided that she would look for work. This was primarily because she couldn't afford childcare and she felt that I was old enough to be a latchkey kid. She got a job as a cashier and found that they really weren't paying her enough so she began working two jobs to make ends meet. Meanwhile, my grades began to suffer and I began running the streets while she was at work. I got involved in stealing from yards, breaking into homes, vandalism, and arson. By the time she found out I was out of control. She quit her jobs and got back on the system and it was war. I failed 7th grade but tested into 8th and so I caught up. My first year of 8th grade I only attended 44 days. They un-enrolled me. My mom began attending church and made me go. I was born again and Jesus helped us get our lives back on track. My mom enrolled me into another high school and I got a fresh start. God then guided me in my high school studies and I joined JROTC. During this time my mom took advantage of some educational programs for people in the welfare system. She began attending part time while I was in school. I graduated and joined the military and was in for 8 years. I was able to take advantage of some educational opportunities. I've been an M1 Tank Crewman, a Combat Medic, an EMT-P, a Therapeutic Programing Assistant for the MRDD, I got my MCSA, worked with two major banks as a network support technician, I worked for LexisNexis supporting Case Law Summaries, Science Direct, and Congressional Information Systems. I've also served in local government through applying through the civil service department. Today I'm into database management and network administration/security.

There are millions of us who the system served and served well. It gave us a shot when we didn't have one. The problem is, most are too embarrassed to admit that without welfare their quality of life would have been abysmal. My life would have been terrible without welfare to help me and my mom. The Lord helped give me a perspective that allowed me to make the decisions necessary to get my education and not need the system when I grew up.

I'd like to sincerely thank Jesus and the American tax payers. I'm a life that was changed.

I also do not understand where you see the blind allegiance to the Republican party? Many people I know are disgusted with both political parties, this election.

In my neck of the woods there are many who are disgusted with the Republicans. However, the vast majority of the religious people I know are pulling for Trump and are like those who were a part of a phony focus group who supported Trump even when faced with fabricated and outlandish proposals that were being attributed to him. LOL! The majority of religious folk aren't willing to vote third party and so they are like self convinced Trump supporters who are buying into it hook, line and sinker.

Here's a link to the phony focus group if you haven't heard of it:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ump-supporters

And good luck with moving the Dems closer to Christianity, remember them booing God at the 2012 convention?

Democrats, even religious Democrats, don't like overtly religious statements being made by politicians who are charged with representing all Americas, even those who are not religious. We tend to be rather sensitive to this because people can use religion to manipulate (be they Democrat or Republican). Many boos were probably agnostics and atheists. Many were probably Catholics and Progressive Christians who feel that God shouldn't be used as a political tool. We like policies. Solid socially democratic policies. At a convention, that's what we like to hear. We'll compare those policies with our personal religious beliefs later in private. That's just the nature of most religious Democrats that I know. But I do know this.... it would have been nice if there were enough vocal Christians in the Democratic Party to cheer mentions of God along side the booing and still be heard.

As a Christian Democrat, I have contributed to and supported the DFLA. I'm not sure if you've heard of it. It is the Democrats for Life of America. We pushed the 95/10 Initiative and the 17 policy proposals under the Bush Administration. Many of these were made law in separate legislation under Obama. Here's a link if you want more information:

http://democratsforlife.org/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't see how going from a party made up of elitist hypocrites, which isn't the base, to a party that blatantly supports murder and rolls out the red carpet for a group of people that practice what God calls an abomination as a good choice. Supporting the Democrats is a huge non-starter for me.

Abortion

First, Democrats don't support murder. They support "choice".

Second, not all Democrats are big on pro-choice. The DFLA is a good example of the Pro-Life voices within the Democratic Party. We desperately need more people involved if we want to made the national party a big tent party that welcomes Pro-Life politicians. The DFLA does quite well on the local and state levels.

Thirdly, choice is about limiting government power. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The term "persons" means "bodies". Therefore, the government has no authority over a woman's "body" unless a warrant is legally issued to allow her to be seized. Of course the legal notion is, to force a woman to give birth against her will is to essentially seize her body for the purpose of forcing birth. Of equal concern is the expansion of government power of one's person. Any government that can violate a woman's sovereignty over her body and force a woman to give birth against her will under threat of penalty.... can also violate a woman's sovereignty over her body and force her to abort against her will under threat of penalty (for example, China policy).

The SCOTUS chose to relinquish the authority of a woman's body and health (and the fruit of her womb) to individual women themselves. Thus, it is women who have a choice. Those individual women who choose abortion are morally responsible for that choice. Not a political party, not the government, not you, not me.

On a side note, if we examine those nations with the lowest abortion rates we will quickly see that they are progressive nations with comprehensive healthcare and birth control. You will also see that most of these progressive nations are pro-choice. Nations wherein abortion is prohibited tend to have higher abortion rates, and that is even after basing statistical data on maternal morbidity alone. The issue is, merely banning abortion doesn't resolve the abortion issue. Sure, it is a political band aide that helps people sleep at night. However, abortions will still take place.

Studies have shown that nearly two out of three women who procure abortion live nearly at or below poverty level. Issues such as teen pregnancy, no health insurance, low wages, lack of a job, no husband or husband being out of work, low education creating little promise for higher wages, etc. are primary factors mentioned by 2 out of 3 women who procure abortion. Consider this one factor, you have a scared girl who has no insurance facing thousands of dollars in medical bills if she has the child in a hospital. However, an abortion costs around $200. Guess what, the odds are high that she will abort.

What is interesting is that abortion rates hit a 20 year all time low under Clinton as more people had access to contraceptives, found work, gained health insurance, experienced increase in wages, etc. We don't see that during the previous Republican administrations which saw recession, high joblessness, loss of wages, loss of insurance, etc. Abortion is a socio-economic issue. When people are financially stable they are more likely to choose life and raise a family than when they are not. Really, it's a no brainer.

Because of this the DFLA proposed 17 policy ideas targeted to address the primary issues women in crisis pregnancies face. These policies were a part of the 95/10 initiative. The goal was to reduce the abortion rate 95% within 10 years, even without overturning Roe v. Wade. The "95/10 Initiative" would:

Authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to increase public awareness of resources available to pregnant women to carry their pregnancy to term and new parents.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to allow the Secretary to make grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment for examinations of pregnant women.

Prohibits a health insurance issuer offering individual coverage from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion or a waiting period or otherwise discriminating against a woman on the basis that she is pregnant.

Provides for continuation coverage for newborns.

Amends title XXI (State Children's Health Insurance Program) (CHIP, formerly known as SCHIP) of the Social Security Act to allow states to extend health care coverage to an unborn child.

Requires health facilities that perform abortions to obtain informed consent from a pregnant woman seeking an abortion.

Directs the Secretary to provide for: (1) higher education pregnant and parenting student services offices; and (2) programs to work with pregnant or parenting teens to complete high school.

Authorizes grants for services to pregnant women who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. Requires states to require a pregnancy determination for homicide victims.

Requires the Secretary to provide for supportive services for pregnant women, mothers, and children.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase and make refundable the tax credit for adoption expenses.

Authorizes appropriations to carry out the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC program).

Amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to increase the eligibility threshold for food stamps.

Authorizes appropriations to carry out the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990.

Authorizes grants to provide to eligible mothers education on the health needs of their infants through visits to their homes by registered nurses.

Authorizes grants for collecting and reporting abortion surveillance data.

Sadly, these measures were defeated by... PRO-LIFE REPUBLICANS. Why? Because it was drafted by DEMOCRATS. However, since Obama entered office, some of these measures (or a form thereof) have become law in various pieces of legislation or executive order.

All the Republicans bring to the table is the promise to overturn Roe. That's all they offer. That's it. And now it has been over 3 decades and they've made NO traction on the issue. However, the Pro-Life wing of the Democratic Party is offering (and has offered) a series of proposals to address the issues women face when confronted with a crisis pregnancy specifically designed to reduce the abortion rate even if Roe remains the law of the land. So, you tell me which Pro-Life group is really fighting hard to make a difference.

Gay Marriage

As far as gay marriage.... For progressive Christians, Democrats, and Libertarians it's an issue of civil rights, love, and grace. We see private associations and intimate relationships as being none of the government's business. Many liberal churches interpret the Bible in a manner that is more open to gay people. So it is a private issue spanning the gamut of civil rights, equal representation, and even religious liberty. So, frankly, most liberal/progressive/libertarian types don't care if gays marry. Denying marriage isn't going to make them stop being gay. Many on the progressive side who don't personally agree with homosexuality agree with equal rights. Some hold to what they call the "Gold Standard", meaning gay or straight, if you sleep with someone, you should be legally committed to them. The liberals/progressives/libertarians would rather allow gays to marry and not make martyrs out of them. The honeymoon of legal "gay marriage" will end with the advent of "gay divorce". Yep, they'll be just as miserable as the rest of us! LOL Not to mention, gay divorce will make for great late night television. lol

Personally, I don't think the government should be in the marriage business. I'd rather see marriage exist as a private contract, not a civil contract. A private contract would allow people to contract marriage as they desire straight, gay, polygamous, etc. But that's just me.

[Aquila]

Attached you'll find a cartoon that brings to light how the conservative pro-life moment appears to those who are more liberal in their ideology. I found the cartoon to be rather challenging when I was rolling with the conservative crowd....

[aegsm76]

Aquila - I have seen your testimony before and it is a great one.
It is one of those that proves God can change lives, dramatically.
Some years ago on this forum I stated that gay marriage would be approved.
I then stated that the laws against incest, polygamy and the age of consent would be next.
We are now seeing this come to pass.
I also stated that we would see the day when a Bible would not be permitted on government property.
We are seeing signs of that coming to pass.
And what party is leading the charge on all of these issues?
The Democratic Party.
That is why I cannot support them.
I was the first member of my family to not be a Democrat and it caused a little bit of scandal.
Now, I do not believe the Republicans are God's party, but, I do find that there are many more people in the Republican party who believe like I do, than in the Dems.
The slippery slope started many years ago with tolerate us, then accept us, now it is agree with us or we will make you wish you had.
I believe that the far left of the Dems is far more dangerous than any of us can imagine.
Their agenda is the elimination of Christianity as we know it.
And they do not care how they get there or who they have to ally with to succeed.

[Esaias]

Aquila, abortion is murder. And us abolitionists don't really care what "the more liberal crowd" thinks of us, anymore than a Jew would care what Nazis think of them. And all that is implied by that comparison.

[Carl]

This is total bunk that republicans haven't offered anything but overturning Roe v Wade. How about reducing government funding for something that is supposed to be a private matter. Or requiring ultrasounds before an abortion. Waiting periods and requiring physicians to have admitting at a nearby hospital. These are all things proposed by conservatives.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Attached you'll find a cartoon that brings to light how the conservative pro-life moment appears to those who are more liberal in their ideology. I found the cartoon to be rather challenging when I was rolling with the conservative crowd....

Aquila, that cartoon is nothing but garbage. Conservatives give to charity, far more than lieberals do. As for welfare, I'm glad you benefited from it, but it still doesn't make it right. Feeding the poor should be left to the churches and charity organizations, not the government.

Stealing from taxpayers, in order to give that money to others, is not charity. It's theft.

As for your comments on abortion, to claim that the fourth amendment gives the right to abortion....well, to call it stretching things, would be the understatement of the century. You cannot support abortion, and call yourself a Christian.

And saying we're not going to legally allow it, is not the same thing as denying people the choice. People choose to do lots of things that are illegal. Addicts shoot up with drugs. Should we make it legal, since it should be their choice? Pedophiles watch child porn. Should we make it legal, since it should be their choice?

And the thing is, neither of those examples even involve someone dying. Abortion takes a life, EVERY! SINGLE! TIME!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Carl

This is total bunk that republicans haven't offered anything but overturning Roe v Wade. How about reducing government funding for something that is supposed to be a private matter. Or requiring ultrasounds before an abortion. Waiting periods and requiring physicians to have admitting at a nearby hospital. These are all things proposed by conservatives.

Yes, conservatives have offered those things (some of them even with Democratic support). However, none of those things address the issues that so many women face when confronted with a crisis pregnancy.

For example, let's say a young girl becomes pregnant. Her husband is out of work, she has no health insurance, her wages aren't even enough to live a week on, she has 3 other kids, and her mom is saying, "Honey, is this really the right time to have a child?" She was raised Republican and doesn't want to get on welfare because she knows how terrible it is to "mooch" off the tax payer and live off the government. She's pondering in her heart as to if maybe an abortion is the best answer.

How do any of the conservative contributions you list above help her address the very real and present issues she's facing?

* Reduce or cut public funding to Planned Parenthood - Okay, now she has to borrow $200 dollars from her mother to get the abortion. Also, the funding cut would have also provided various prenatal procedures, physicals, tests, and checkups she and other women can't afford. She's actually more desperate now than before.

* They force her to have an ultrasound - She's humiliated over having to discuss this at length with staff and she is being FORCED to undergo a procedure she really doesn't want to have. She knows what the ultrasound will present. After all, she has three kids. This makes her circumstance even more emotional and leaves her even more psychologically depressed. She's thinking, "This is a nightmare."

* Waiting period - Now she's told that she has to wait a period of time to ponder her decision. She's frustrated, she already made the decision. No little girl says, "Mommy, I want to have an abortion when I grow up." She came to her decision after agonizing over it, talking to her mom and husband about it. Why does she have to wait? It's bad enough as it is. She just wants to get this past her.

* Requiring physicians to have residency/admittance at a local hospital - Abortion isn't something many doctors are willing to do. And for many, it can be a very bad career move. Requiring doctors to basically reduces the pool of doctors willing to provide abortion services. This reduces access to abortion. So now, instead of driving to the local Women's Health Center, she has to drive 132 miles to find a physician who might provide abortion services.

I'm not going to make a moral judgment on the things above. If we look at them one way, they can be positive things. If we look at them another way, they can be negative things.

What I want to point out is, none of those things truly address the issues she's facing as a woman in an unplanned (crisis) pregnancy. Her issues are:

* Husband needs work with a living wage.

* She needs medical insurance for her entire family. This insurance would cover all prenatal exams, procedures, and checkups.

* Although she works, she needs a living wage.

Thus a domestic policy that generates jobs with high enough wages to raise a family on and expands health insurance to cover all Americans is far more important to her situation and would go further to help her choose life than any of the measures provided by the conservatives that you've named.

We have to address the issues women face.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Aquila, that cartoon is nothing but garbage. Conservatives give to charity, far more than lieberals do. As for welfare, I'm glad you benefited from it, but it still doesn't make it right. Feeding the poor should be left to the churches and charity organizations, not the government.

Most churches can barely pay their own bills. Conservatives (and liberals) give to charity. I have no issue with charity. When my mom and I were homeless for roughly 3 months, our initial help came from a network and Methodist and Catholic charities. But they couldn't sustain us long term.

Stealing from taxpayers, in order to give that money to others, is not charity. It's theft.

I'll address this in another post, because it deserves more discussion.

As for your comments on abortion, to claim that the fourth amendment gives the right to abortion....well, to call it stretching things, would be the understatement of the century. You cannot support abortion, and call yourself a Christian.

I never said that the Fourth Amendment gives the right to an abortion. Let's get back to what I did say. The Fourth Amendment assures us that we are to be secure in our persons (bodies), houses, papers, an effects from search or seizure. Constitutionally speaking, the only way we can be subject to search or seizure is through a properly provided warrant.

I have the transcripts of Roe v. Wade in a CD set. I also have a CD set titled, May It Please the Court. In both sets the deliberation among the Supreme Court Judges was explained in detail. One issue the court had was that the Fourth Amendment kept coming up. They kept being confronted with the issue of if she is forced to have a child against her will, her person is essentially being legally seized. Pregnancy isn't criminal, so there are no legal grounds for seizure. They also examined if keeping abortion prohibited truly prevented women from seeking abortion procedures and protected women (the goal). They found that women still sought abortion even though it was illegal. They also found that the procedures women received were not sanitary and were a greater danger to a woman's health than the sterile procedures that could be provided at an actual medical facility. They also discussed if abortion were a felonious or a misdemeanor and what penalties would be legally just based on history and case law.

At the end of the day they felt forcing a woman to give birth against her will was a form of seizure. They also felt that keeping abortion prohibited no longer served the purpose of protecting a woman's health. Remember, prior to the 1880's, abortion was legal in the United States. Anti-abortion legislation was originally passed to prohibit abortion due to the unsanitary practices that were causing many women to die from infection. With more sanitary procedures, the court felt that the prohibition provided by legislation on those grounds was no longer necessary.

On a side note, anti-abortion legislation going back into the late 1800's reference the growing women's suffrage movement and the growing interest in birth control. Remember, women were considered 2nd class citizens at that time and the culture was such that the more legal control over a woman, the better. So, many anti-abortion statutes were designed as a backlash against the growing women's suffrage movement. Not to mention, the birthrate among Northern European women was beginning to drop in the late 1800's. The eugenics movement was concerned about "race suicide" and wanted more white European women to give birth. Anti-abortion legislation was a way to protect women from dying of infection, keep women under legal control, and to boost European birthrates.

And saying we're not going to legally allow it, is not the same thing as denying people the choice. People choose to do lots of things that are illegal. Addicts shoot up with drugs. Should we make it legal, since it should be their choice? Pedophiles watch child porn. Should we make it legal, since it should be their choice?

I'm sorry, but your opinion is just an opinion. That's not how the SCOTUS defined the issue.

And the thing is, neither of those examples even involve someone dying. Abortion takes a life, EVERY! SINGLE! TIME!

The SCOTUS also wrangled over when life began. And how to define life, must human life have consciousness? When does consciousness begin? Many of these things were thrown out because they are more metaphysical and theological than scientific or medical. They also examined how the life of the mother and her unborn are intertwined in such a way that they can't truly be differentiated legally until viability. Thus the court felt that until viability, the fetus was to be considered under the mother's full authority and to be considered a part of her own body. This is why many jurisdictions have limitations on abortion after the first trimester.

To listen to the deliberations is fascinating and eye opening. It wasn't the evil, vile, brutal agenda we're often told it was. The court really looked at it from many different angles. In the end, due to the sheer complexity of the issue, they felt that it was best to overrule abortion prohibition laws dating back to the late 1800's and leave the choice to abort or not up to individual women. Honestly, if you listen to the deliberations or read them, you'll notice that the court was very level headed about the issue.

The difficult truth about life is.... there are circumstances wherein people have the legal authority to make life or death decisions. According to the courts, the life of a woman's fetus is under her authority until viability. The court felt that the moral complexity of the issue is not for the court to decide.