Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

---

You mean like the Democrats who pretend to be feminist but then rape and otherwise sexually assault women?

---

Which Democrats are you referring to? (I actually know already, but I want to see you defeat your own point).

Quote:

---

And that's your opinion on what the conservative principles are. I don't think necessarily a very informed or reasonable opinion at that, but you can have it and keep it. I doubt any Republican would give one ounce of weight to what you say are conservative principles (or anything you claim to believe really), but if that makes you feel better about yourself and gives you a sense of identity without actually having to judge yourself, go at it. I wasn't addressing the comment to people like you who are so fixated on your alleged liberal views that logic and reason has no place anyway.

---

I actually didn't say anything on what conservative principles are, but thanks for the rant.

Quote:

---

It was really more just venting with fellow moderate conservatives that we have to take back our party and put principle above winning an election and remember what made us conservatives in the first place (and it wasn't the non-sense nationalism and selfishness but it was smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, individual dignity, protection of family values, unity as human beings instead of divisions based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender).

---

Well, that ties into practicing what you preach. Conservatives say they're for those things, but they aren't. Conservatives don't believe in smaller government at all. They believe in things like eliminating the EPA and cutting medical care, but they don't actually believe in a smaller budget because what they really believe in is bigtime defense spending at the expense of those other things and with a large deficit (something else they say they want to reduce, but not really). Personal accountability is a vague meaningless term. Family values is code for anti-abortion and anti-LGBT which isn't family values at all. And no party promotes more division among non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexuals than the Republican Party.

---

You're unnecessarily twisting yourself into a pretzel. You either have the shortest memory or you just don't actually believe in anything. This is what you wrote: "Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are." Umm...so how were you not actually saying anything on what conservative principles are?

I was referring to the CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES (not what the Republican party is doing now) and that our party has to GET BACK to those principles. Does that not imply that our party is not following the conservative principles? So talking to me about what the current White House is doing is just you wanting to flap your lips and doesn't have any relevance to what I wrote.

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

---

You mean like the Democrats who pretend to be feminist but then rape and otherwise sexually assault women?

---

Which Democrats are you referring to? (I actually know already, but I want to see you defeat your own point).

---

---

Are you too cowardly to back up what you said here?

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

Conservative principles are whatever the current iteration of the Republican Party says they are. I don't think any party is looking back 50-60 years to determine what their principles are. Certainly not the Democrats, who were where the Jim Crow legislators primarily were during that period of time and probably not the Republicans either. The Republicans' biggest issue is practicing what they preach.

---

You mean like the Democrats who pretend to be feminist but then rape and otherwise sexually assault women?

---

Which Democrats are you referring to? (I actually know already, but I want to see you defeat your own point).

---

---

Are you too cowardly to back up what you said here?

---

Cowardly? What? Wow, you are quite the socially awkward person, aren't you?

FWIW, I don't think Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey should be Senators either.

Neither Moore nor Strange should be either. However,the idiot poster tried to argue that Republicans as a whole are hypocritical because Moore, who claims to be a Republican, doesn't practice what he preaches. Well, plenty of Democrats don't practice what they preach either. Hypocrisy is not a one party problem.

I wasn't referring to Moore at all. I was speaking of political stances, not sexual ones.

Anyhow, now that it's firmly established that you are too cowardly to name these Democrats that rape or sexually assault women, let's move on to a different subject. What era of Republican values are you looking to go back to? 50's? 60's? 70's? I'm guessing not 80's or later based on the limited amount of information you've given as to what you think a Republican should stand for.

And this leads to another question. If you're not satisfied with what Republicans are currently satisfied with, what do you do when you are presented with a political race where it's a Democrat who appears to genuinely believe in what he's campaigning for (even though some of those stances are stances you wouldn't support) vs one of these Republican-in-name-only candidates (as viewed by you). If you were an Alabaman, would you vote for Doug Jones or Roy Moore? Or would you decline to vote at all for that race?

You're neither coherent nor interesting. I have no idea what you are writing about and I have no interest in trying to understand your disingenuous thinking.

sycasey said:

---

FWIW, I don't think Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey should be Senators either.

---

I think Kevin Spacey would make an excellent POTUS, however.



I think if poor Meecham hadn't bought the Marble Orchard, today he would be one of the claimants.

Now that's funny.

calbear93 said:

---

You're neither coherent nor interesting. I have no idea what you are writing about and I have no interest in trying to understand your disingenuous thinking.

---

I'm asking very plain questions, to which you repeatedly refuse to give answers. Maybe you should ask me questions so I can show you what the answer portion of the exercise looks like.

Just hush. You're boring and maybe I don't want to answer your question and mislead you into thinking debating you has any value. Clearly I am not shy about arguing with folks and you must be used to people not taking you seriously. Don't be so desperate. I would rather not be cruel.

It's OK. It's sufficient to establish that you have so much belief in whatever it is that you stand for that you are afraid to state it in public. My opinion is that if you lived in Alabama, you'd do exactly what the guy in the Tweet said he'd do above and vote for Moore. I don't think you should feel too ashamed of that though, since the majority of the country would make the exact same decision, so the numbers are with you.

Yes, you are brave and quite the winner. I am shivering in your brilliance. Thank you for sharing with us what you think, especially on Alabama politics, because we were waiting with bated breath how a lengend like you views the world. Now the world makes so much more sense. I feel safe knowing what you think because I really care.

Happy to be of service

Continue to be disappointed that American Christian leaders refuse to disassociate themselves from the GOP. I'm certainly no fan of Bubba & Hillary, but was absurd that Jerry Falwell bankrolled a video clamoring they bumped off ~ 30 people. Pat Robertson has been embarrassing for decades. Billy Graham did a lot of good things, but his son Franklin Graham is a clown.

There are millions of pious conservative Catholics in America who would be better suited to be Ambassador to the Vatican than Newt's wife (who had a six year affair with a married partisan political hack).

Thankfully Huckabee and Santorum never got out of the JV debates in 2016, but weasels like Cruz and Carson did. Trump's not remotely Christian, but evangelicals wholeheartedly supported him despite his multiple well known sins.

The Christian Right was a marriage of convenience, but at this point their hypocrisy is doing long term damage to both the GOP and American Christians.

GOP Senators don't seem to be too worried, after all.

BearChemist said:

---

GOP Senators don't seem to be too worried, after all.

---

I mean, he's gonna win. Better a sexual predator than a Democrat.

BearDevil said:

---

Continue to be disappointed that American Christian leaders refuse to disassociate themselves from the GOP. I'm certainly no fan of Bubba & Hillary, but was absurd that Jerry Falwell bankrolled a video clamoring they bumped off ~ 30 people. Pat Robertson has been embarrassing for decades. Billy Graham did a lot of good things, but his son Franklin Graham is a clown.

There are millions of pious conservative Catholics in America who would be better suited to be Ambassador to the Vatican than Newt's wife (who had a six year affair with a married partisan political hack).

Thankfully Huckabee and Santorum never got out of the JV debates in 2016, but weasels like Cruz and Carson did. Trump's not remotely Christian, but evangelicals wholeheartedly supported him despite his multiple well known sins.

The Christian Right was a marriage of convenience, but at this point their hypocrisy is doing long term damage to both the GOP and American Christians.

---

Agree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith. For an objective person to view what our options are, all one has to do is assess the reactions on this board (and these are the educated folks who at least attempt to be logical) to Christianity. So what options beyond the Republican party do we have other than to go into a shell and disengage from the entire civic process.

Having said that, we cannot be complicit in the unrepentant wrongs of others. We all sin and we are all flawed. I am a clear example of how Christians are no less flawed or shamefully proud (and therefore always grateful for the justification provided by our faith in the completed works of our Lord) than others and long for the sanctification that is a continuing process. We are not in any position to judge a person's moral standing. However, we can assess principles and actions based on what we have been taught, and Christians who excuse behavior from Republicans (including Trump) because of party allegiance engage in worshiping false idols and put trust and faith in government before God. And, while not judging others, Christians cannot compromise what has been taught to us by the Holy Spirit as if the society's sense of right and wrong overrides God's teachings, whether the pressure to conform and compromise comes from the left or the right.

In short, we have one identity. And it is not the GOP.

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Perhaps you should use a different word starting with v rather than violently opposed.

Unfortunately, prejudice is everywhere out there and it isn't just white vs. black or hetero vs non-hetero. Personally, I would think about why and when you choose to share that you are a fundamental Christian. My daughter has a friend whose family is Muslim, but we don't ever discuss their faith with them. I myself am not a religious person at all, but I don't begrudge people who are religious to have their faith so long as they aren't pushing it on me.

I would maintain that you and Obama are of the same faith - you believe in the same monotheistic god, you both believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, you both use the Bible as your scripture. The differences are not significant compared to comparing a Christian to a Muslim or a Buddhist. And at any rate any type of Christian should not judge another man's faith as being "less than" his faith as he is flawed and sinful and not put upon the earth to judge others.

I'm not sure what you mean by the gay marriage example as you haven't specified what civil right you are breaking.

As for life beginning at conception, that is not a religious view per se. Before Jerry Falwell, there was no real consensus on life beginning at birth or at conception - it was something that the religious right advocated for until many Christians assumed that they must be correct and adopted that as their view. The Bible however doesn't say anything about life beginning at conception. Doesn't mean that life doesn't begin then either, but the Bible has nothing to say on the subject. That's more of a moral position than a religious one.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Perhaps you should use a different word starting with v rather than violently opposed.

Unfortunately, prejudice is everywhere out there and it isn't just white vs. black or hetero vs non-hetero. Personally, I would think about why and when you choose to share that you are a fundamental Christian. My daughter has a friend whose family is Muslim, but we don't ever discuss their faith with them. I myself am not a religious person at all, but I don't begrudge people who are religious to have their faith so long as they aren't pushing it on me.

I would maintain that you and Obama are of the same faith - you believe in the same monotheistic god, you both believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, you both use the Bible as your scripture. The differences are not significant compared to comparing a Christian to a Muslim or a Buddhist. And at any rate any type of Christian should not judge another man's faith as being "less than" his faith as he is flawed and sinful and not put upon the earth to judge others.

I'm not sure what you mean by the gay marriage example as you haven't specified what civil right you are breaking.

As for life beginning at conception, that is not a religious view per se. Before Jerry Falwell, there was no real consensus on life beginning at birth or at conception - it was something that the religious right advocated for until many Christians assumed that they must be correct and adopted that as their view. The Bible however doesn't say anything about life beginning at conception. Doesn't mean that life doesn't begin then either, but the Bible has nothing to say on the subject. That's more of a moral position than a religious one.

---

I think most people would understand if I don't take social etiquette lessons from you. You don't seem like the expert.

And the fact that you are so ignorant (as demonstrated by your description) about the Christian faith and would tell me what my faith and beliefs are makes me shake my head. Please get educated before pretending to lecture to us on what we believe.

And if you don't know the wedding cake case, there this thing we call Google. Very useful. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case/

And I have had more extensive discussions on these boards with pro-choice people more knowledgeable and reasoned than you (again, you can do a search - internet is your friend). Not interested in having an elementary and uninformed discussion on the same topic with you. Sorry.

But have fun. Sorry that I am putting you on ignore now.

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Dear calbear93: Respectfully: I am on the left; and I am religious. I believe that faith is a necessary part of life; and I further believe that religious revelation is of a piece, such that the differences between religions are differences of language, i.e., that various people understand things in some languages but not others, which, as far as I'm concerned, is fine, as long as they manage to find their way to the faith that they need. To me, there is no such thing as an illegitimate religion. There are certainly crimes committed in the name of religion; but I do not believe there is any religion that is free from that. So, I guess that's where I differ from what I understand of your expressions, which appear to me to amount to the assertion that there is not a soul on the Democratic Party side who can be credited with being legitimately religious, or, in your case apparently, legitimately Christian, which tends to indicate that you regard all whose beliefs on certain religious tenets differ from yours (including Christians) somehow do violence to you, or to your soul, or to society.

mikecohen said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Dear calbear93: Respectfully: I am on the left; and I am religious. I believe that faith is a necessary part of life; and I further believe that religious revelation is of a piece, such that the differences between religions are differences of language, i.e., that various people understand things in some languages but not others, which, as far as I'm concerned, is fine, as long as they manage to find their way to the faith that they need. To me, there is no such thing as an illegitimate religion. There are certainly crimes committed in the name of religion; but I do not believe there is any religion that is free from that. So, I guess that's where I differ from what I understand of your expressions, which appear to me to amount to the assertion that there is not a soul on the Democratic Party side who can be credited with being legitimately religious, or, in your case apparently, legitimately Christian, which tends to indicate that you regard all whose beliefs on certain religious tenets differ from yours (including Christians) somehow do violence to you, or to your soul, or to society.

---

Agree with most of what you wrote. And I am glad that your faith allows you to rest comfortably within the Democratic party. My faith doesn't allow me to fit comfortable within either party, but I know there is no place for someone like me with my beliefs in the Democratic party.

I guess one would have to understand what it means to be a Christian. Being Christian means that one knows that Jesus is both LORD and Savior. Most people get the savior part, but they forget the Lord part. "Lord" does not mean a friend, a counselor, a teacher, a parent. It means master and king. If my boss tells me to do something, I will most likely do so. How much more when my Lord tells me. I don't get to say....thanks for letting me know...I like what you are saying 90% of the time, but I think I will ignore the other 10% because I disagree with it. Not how it works. And one of the core foundation of the reformed theology is "sola scriptura". If we don't believe the scripture, what do we believe? Our gut feeling on who God is and not on what God told us He is? So, as such, when Obama (who I believe is well meaning and is more humane than Trump - who I truly question as well is a Christian) proposes things that are so against what his supposed Lord teaches him, I have to wonder what he means by saying he is a Christian? That he goes to church? What does that mean?

And when I say that someone is violently opposed to me being a Christian, it doesn't mean that someone does physical violence to me (not worried about someone physically attacking me). It also doesn't mean that no one can disagree with me. I love the fact that our country allows for the most part different faith and different beliefs. If you really want to know, I suggest you try an experiment. Go to Berkeley and, in all sincerity, tell people who are clearly progressive leaning that you are a fundamental Christian. Let me know how that goes.

calbear93 said:

---

I think most people would understand if I don't take social etiquette lessons from you. You don't seem like the expert.

And the fact that you are so ignorant (as demonstrated by your description) about the Christian faith and would tell me what my faith and beliefs are makes me shake my head. Please get educated before pretending to lecture to us on what we believe.

And if you don't know the wedding cake case, there this thing we call Google. Very useful. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case/

And I have had more extensive discussions on these boards with pro-choice people more knowledgeable and reasoned than you (again, you can do a search - internet is your friend). Not interested in having an elementary and uninformed discussion on the same topic with you. Sorry.

But have fun. Sorry that I am putting you on ignore now.

---

I'm aware of the wedding cake case. It hasn't been decided yet, although it will almost assuredly be decided in favor of the baker. The Justice Department even wrote a brief supporting the baker.

I'm sorry that you fear discussing these issues with me.

Watching the Alabama and the national GOP engage in verbal gymnastics as they comment on the Roy Moore's love of underage girls while in his 30's, is insane. The likening of the situation to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus by an Alabama politician is crazy. There is no reasonable defense for this dirtbag. As members of the GOP attempt to make this situation better by straddling the fence by using an "if" statement, they lose their ability to assert moral superiority in the future. Should Moore win Alabama's race, the congressional GOP members will have to decide if they are willing to link themselves to Roy Moore. How many GOP members are willing to hang the weight of Roy Moore around their necks in the present political environment? If elected, the Dems will force GOP members to verbally go on record with their vote on whether or not to seat an alleged pedophile.

BearNIt said:

---

Watching the Alabama and the national GOP engage in verbal gymnastics as they comment on the Roy Moore's love of underage girls while in his 30's, is insane. The likening of the situation to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus by an Alabama politician is crazy. There is no reasonable defense for this dirtbag. As members of the GOP attempt to make this situation better by straddling the fence by using an "if" statement, they lose their ability to assert moral superiority in the future. Should Moore win Alabama's race, the congressional GOP members will have to decide if they are willing to link themselves to Roy Moore. How many GOP members are willing to hang the weight of Roy Moore around their necks in the present political environment?

---

Come on. That is a false narrative. National GOP is not supporting Moore. Other than the fools in Alabama, who are you thinking of when you say "national GOP"? I don't have a violent objection to the use of the word "if" because I can also understand why someone in high office may not want to draw conclusions without more facts in case it may come back to haunt them. I would probably argue that the accusers seem credible. Here is what I am seeing: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/republicans-roy-moore/index.html

Never said that the Alabama and National GOP were supporting Roy Moore, but they sure aren't willing to jettison him either. When you say "if" after sorting through the information provided, then you are performing verbal gymnastics when asked, do you believe the woman's report of what happened when she was 14? What 32 year-old Assistant D.A. picks up a 14 year old girl around the corner from her house after meeting her just days earlier at a courthouse due to a custody hearing? Moore's history of dating girls almost 20 years younger at the age of 32 reeks of something disturbing and shows a pattern. I find it interesting that the first individuals from the GOP that have expressed their concern are McCain, Corker, Romney, and Flake. These individuals are not running for office again, are considered Establishment Republicans, and have the ability to voice their opinions without retribution. What I am not hearing is the Banonnites disavowing Moore and that is worrisome, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the election of a pu@@y grabbing president.

BearNIt said:

---

Never said that the Alabama and National GOP were supporting Roy Moore, but they sure aren't willing to jettison him either. When you say "if" after sorting through the information provided, then you are performing verbal gymnastics when asked do you believe the woman's report of what happened when she was 14. What 32 year-old Assistant D.A. picks up a 14 year old girl around the corner from her house after meeting her just days earlier at a courthouse due to a custody hearing? Moore's history of dating girls almost 20 years younger at the age of 32 reeks of something disturbing and shows a pattern. I find it interesting that the first individuals from the GOP that have expressed their concern are McCain, Corker, Romney, and Flake. These individuals are not running for office again, are considered Establishment Republicans, and have the ability to voice their opinions. What I am not hearing is the Banonnites disavowing Moore and that is worrisome, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the election of a pu@@y grabbing president.

---

I have no problem saying at this point that Moore sure looks guilty and he should be shamed out of the election. I am not a GOP senator, and I understand why, for example, Democrats in office didn't conclusively condemn Bill Clinton when there were accusations against him. It is higher stake when you are in public arena with greater consequences for being wrong. What is funny are the weak suggestions even in the event that the accusations are true (e.g., he should consider withdrawing - yeah, if you are attacking 14 year old girls, there is nothing to consider other than considering voluntarily committing himself to jail).

Bannon is not national GOP. He is going after the national GOP. Bannon is a despicable person who is no better than this guy: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/las-vegas-shooting-drexel-professor-george-ciccariello-maher-trump-white-victimization-20171004.html

calbear93 said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Dear calbear93: Respectfully: I am on the left; and I am religious. I believe that faith is a necessary part of life; and I further believe that religious revelation is of a piece, such that the differences between religions are differences of language, i.e., that various people understand things in some languages but not others, which, as far as I'm concerned, is fine, as long as they manage to find their way to the faith that they need. To me, there is no such thing as an illegitimate religion. There are certainly crimes committed in the name of religion; but I do not believe there is any religion that is free from that. So, I guess that's where I differ from what I understand of your expressions, which appear to me to amount to the assertion that there is not a soul on the Democratic Party side who can be credited with being legitimately religious, or, in your case apparently, legitimately Christian, which tends to indicate that you regard all whose beliefs on certain religious tenets differ from yours (including Christians) somehow do violence to you, or to your soul, or to society.

---

Agree with most of what you wrote. And I am glad that your faith allows you to rest comfortably within the Democratic party. My faith doesn't allow me to fit comfortable within either party, but I know there is no place for someone like me with my beliefs in the Democratic party.

I guess one would have to understand what it means to be a Christian. Being Christian means that one knows that Jesus is both LORD and Savior. Most people get the savior part, but they forget the Lord part. "Lord" does not mean a friend, a counselor, a teacher, a parent. It means master and king. If my boss tells me to do something, I will most likely do so. How much more when my Lord tells me. I don't get to say....thanks for letting me know...I like what you are saying 90% of the time, but I think I will ignore the other 10% because I disagree with it. Not how it works. And one of the core foundation of the reformed theology is "sola scriptura". If we don't believe the scripture, what do we believe? Our gut feeling on who God is and not on what God told us He is? So, as such, when Obama (who I believe is well meaning and is more humane than Trump - who I truly question as well is a Christian) proposes things that are so against what his supposed Lord teaches him, I have to wonder what he means by saying he is a Christian? That he goes to church? What does that mean?

And when I say that someone is violently opposed to me being a Christian, it doesn't mean that someone does physical violence to me (not worried about someone physically attacking me). It also doesn't mean that no one can disagree with me. I love the fact that our country allows for the most part different faith and different beliefs. If you really want to know, I suggest you try an experiment. Go to Berkeley and, in all sincerity, tell people who are clearly progressive leaning that you are a fundamental Christian. Let me know how that goes.

---

I live in Berkeley next door to a family of Born Again Christians, with whom I am very friendly, whom I have helped, and who have helped me, and whom, in numerous ways, I admire [despite our differences on such things as (a) South-of-the-Border Immigrants, whom they think are leaching our benefits, and I point out are about the hardest working people I know, and whose intellectual power is blooming to the max as they achieve more and more on both our terms and theirs; and (b) of course, abortion, which gets to the heart of our differences. Our religious conversations reached an impasse at the same point as mine would with you - on the Authoritarian beliefs, the anthropomorphic god, and the literalist insistence as to the meaning of religious language which is, at best, poetic (seeking to help us get to revealed spiritual truths which cannot, by their nature, be articulated rationally). Life just is NOT clear, well-defined, black and white, etc.; and there is no alternative to having to use one's judgment at every step - each dependent on whatever troubling issues come before us, which always contain things which are unknowable rationally at the crucial moment (regardless whether they can become knowable later and/or at a different time or by different people), which is where faith comes in, as an attitude of openness (to everything, no matter the moral predilections, and willingness to engage with it all, as much as possible, and "faith" in one's ability to do right). I hasten to add that, under no circumstances is it meaningful to abandon reason and scientific and provable truth. On the contrary, all of that is absolutely necessary. It is just that, at any conceivable moment, the ability of those things to inform us is (as should be obvious) limited - not only by the infinity of the Universe but by the fact that everything is changing all the time - fast. But such limits do not prevent us from having to deal, at any given moment, with facts and truths which are, at that moment, beyond those limits; and it is the religious processes discussed above which allow us to see (somehow) beyond those limit lines at the given moment, without being able to articulate how, what or why, or, put another way, to allow us to know the un-knowable, by means other than our reason. I would hopefully circle back to what brings us all to this board, and assert that those moments of (dare I say) creation are a lot of the meaning of athletics. They call it "making a play". I think it would be better called: coming up with a solution at a given instant (sometimes a cosmically significant instant) that no one would have thought of or imagined possible - causing all of us in the audience to jump out of our seats, if not our skins. Peace.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

Every bone in my body wanted to ignore you because, without meaning insult, there is no joy in communicating with you.

However, in the spirit of trying to be civil, I will respond.

If you think violently opposed means actual physical violence, you really need to get out more. Now, when I tell certain people who are progressive that I am a fundamental Christian, I get the hand. That's fine, but that is a violent rejection and opposition to my faith. When I tell people I am Christian, and I get branded as a bigot, ignorant and uneducated (which is ridiculous - if anything, the people here, including me, are over-educated), then it is a violent rejection. You, never having experienced that as a non-Christian, really can't speak to it. It would be like a white person saying no one of color experiences racism.

And Obama is not of the same faith as me. He may believe he is Christian, but he and I have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You just come to the conclusion that we are of the same faith. You need to at least attempt to understand what reformed theology is before you generalize.

And what do you think it means to deny my right to worship? If I refuse to participate in a gay wedding (not that I won't sell you my ready made cake), and I get sued for violation of civil rights law, that is not an infringement on my right to worship? If you don't think so, you really don't understand. If I believe that life starts at conception, and one party keeps expanding what I view to be murder, then you don't understand. Just because you say there is no law infringing on my right to worship (which is just a legal conclusion and an opinion from you and not a fact as you would propose), it doesn't mean that people are wasting their time escalating the wedding cake case to the Supreme Court.

I am a very practical person. What incremental benefit do you think you offer to someone you want to engage with in conversation when you ask me to give examples of violence just because I wrote "violently opposed" or write "how would you vote if you were living in Alabama" when I already wrote that neither Moore nor Strange should be elected. Ignorance and selective reading is not an open invitation for people to take you seriously. So, I hope you don't take it too personally, but based on your disposition and your disingenuous postings, I get no value out of discussing things with you. Not trying to be mean, but why would I want to dialogue with you when I don't think you intend to have a valid discussion? No value-add for me. I appreciate you keep trying, and I am not generally opposed to debating with those who disagree, but responding to your disingenuous posting doesn't interest me. Sorry.

---

Perhaps you should use a different word starting with v rather than violently opposed.

Unfortunately, prejudice is everywhere out there and it isn't just white vs. black or hetero vs non-hetero. Personally, I would think about why and when you choose to share that you are a fundamental Christian. My daughter has a friend whose family is Muslim, but we don't ever discuss their faith with them. I myself am not a religious person at all, but I don't begrudge people who are religious to have their faith so long as they aren't pushing it on me.

I would maintain that you and Obama are of the same faith - you believe in the same monotheistic god, you both believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, you both use the Bible as your scripture. The differences are not significant compared to comparing a Christian to a Muslim or a Buddhist. And at any rate any type of Christian should not judge another man's faith as being "less than" his faith as he is flawed and sinful and not put upon the earth to judge others.

I'm not sure what you mean by the gay marriage example as you haven't specified what civil right you are breaking.

As for life beginning at conception, that is not a religious view per se. Before Jerry Falwell, there was no real consensus on life beginning at birth or at conception - it was something that the religious right advocated for until many Christians assumed that they must be correct and adopted that as their view. The Bible however doesn't say anything about life beginning at conception. Doesn't mean that life doesn't begin then either, but the Bible has nothing to say on the subject. That's more of a moral position than a religious one.

---

As one who self-identifies as progressive, I consider it a logical question before either. I can't imagine how an argument that life does not begin at conception has any validity.

I consider the question of the value of that life as a moral one, but the question of abortion as a political issue that extends beyond the former question. If there was no competition of rights in the question it would be easy to settle, but as much as a fetus has a right to live, a human to whom it is implanted has a right to manage their own body. I may consider their decision to place their non-life threatened interests over the survival of this other human life to be immoral, but in my view it would be more damaging to the community to deny them control over their own body than it is to allow the destruction of life that is not yet sentient.

I am assisted in reaching this conclusion by the knowledge of the consequences of legally prohibiting abortion. Abortions will continue illegally (or in the case of women with the means, in foreign jurisdictions), with all sorts of accompanying dangers. Perhaps worse, children will be born to parents who may never love them on account of having never wanted them and been forced by society to have them. Many of these women may give the child up for adoption, but many will not--and we have enough abused and neglected children to care for in this world already.

I believe the legality of abortion should be tied to the development of the fetus. At the point when the fetus acquires consciousness, abortion should be considered homicide. Before that point, it should be the woman's prerogative.

According to 5 sources (!?!), McMaster allegedly told the Oracle CEO that Trump was a moron. Now both Tillerson and McMaster have trashed Trump's intelligence. Doubt that Kelly will ever make a similar statements, but no doubt he also shares the same sentiment.

If Haley truly wants to be POTUS in the future, she'll also have to rebuke Trump at some point, similar to Gillibrand and the Clintons. Amazed that five sources would confirm the allegation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7mvinu/trumps_new_york_times_interview_is_a_portrait_of/?st=JBSUD4VM&sh=81a69b09
Trump's New York Times Interview Is a Portrait of a Man in Cognitive Decline