Actually, you have stated in several posts that one is either '100% FOR it or 100% AGAINST it'.
You've also implied that you yourself are FOR it and that you SUPPORT it.

My wording of "...pro-choice without necessarily liking the idea of abortion...." didn't necessarily apply to you personally and have a seat Patrick, brace yourself, get somebody to hold your hand you may not be ready for such harsh news but ...

WAKE UP YOU LITTLE SNOT! This thread isn't about and doesn't revolve around ... YOU!

:rolleyes:

Apple

OUCH, I just got home from work and I see politics and religion in the same issue-

Holy Shit, now we are talking some deep shit.
I have to get my raincoat on because I sure don't want to ruin a good suit reading everything that is flying around here.

This is my bottome line:

I admire John Kerry's position of believing in his religion and not inforcing it on everyone. As we well know, America is one of the most broad religious countries out there. I personally do not believe in God or a higher being. I believe in evolution, psychology and science. I believe that our "spirt" is a figment of our consiousness.

But that is not part of this thread and please, let's save that for after the elections. My point is I would not be happy with a president running the most powerful in the world with his idea's of religion. He must understand the USA is a very diverse body. The fact that Kerry can look past his religion and make decisions based on what is better for our country, and not just that religion, is one of the most admirable traits in him. I understand that many people want our country led with Bush's religion at the wheel, but for people like me, I'm into the humanistic aspect of it.

We can't let a religion make our choices for us. We are individuals, we can make them ourselves. The Human Being has come so far and the thought of being a slave to an idealology is unfortunate.

I do think faith is a different thing. Faith transends bounds of religion.

Doctor Ferro

P.S. Again, if you are religious, I respect that more than anything. I ask that we save the religion-life debate for later and focus on the religion-politics view.

That kinda reminded me of that old, old Saturday Night Live Point-Counterpoint routine with Jane Curtin and Dan Ackroyd.

Their debate quickly degenerates into a name-calling match.

I forget what Jane calls Dan, and he responds by calling her a filthy slut or something.

Edit: "Jane, you ignorant slut...."

Part--I have learned more about politics in the past few months then I ever thought I would. It is something that I talk about everyday in my life. There's only a few major things I have changed on, and that's switching my views on abortion and turning into an independent from a democrat. I am sorry if this makes you mad in anyway, but I can't help that my views change on certain issues that I didn't know much about until now. -Pat

The exact phrase was: "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

But not to worry.

Patrick has class; he would never come out with such a comment!

Apple

I have a tape if the 15th anniverasary show, and that bit was on there.

I just looked it up and edited my post just when you posted.

Reminds me of Gilda Radner (as Emily Latella) and Chevy Chase (as the tv newscaster).....

Emily: "Whats all this fuss I hear about presidential erections"?

Chase: "No, no, Miss Latella, thats presidential elections, not erections".

Emily: "Oh, thats different....never mind".

Does anyone remember the episode where Jane Curtian rips her blouse open during their newscast sketch?? I think it was her and Gilda Radner. You guys know which episode that was? I remember laughing a lot during that segment but can't remember any of the dialog.


TIS

Emily was Japanese?

Fast forwarding thru the tape, I saw some great bits, including Belushi's imitation of Don Corleone, Billy Crystal's "Fernando's Hideaway", "Cheesebureger, Cheeseburger", The Whiners, The Bill Murray lounge singer, Bill and Gila as BF and GF and he's giving her noogies, Ackroyd as the refrigerator repairmen who bends over and half of the crack of his ass is showing...

My 2cents here:

- How can devote Catholics vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate, while at the same time say they can't vote for a pro-choice candidate because of their faith? This is very inconsistent.

- To pro-lifers that make exceptions for rape or incent (if Bush wins, appoints justice that overturns Roe v Wade): What happens if a woman claims she was raped and wants to get an abortion? Would the allegation alone permit the abortion? What if the case goes to trial, and the alledged rapist is aquitted. What if the trial takes 9 months before a conviction!? This position is unworkable.

The Catholic Church position of saying abortion is ALWAYS wrong is consistent, as is the pro-choice position.

I am not religious at all. Of course, I have a religioin -- I'm Catholic -- but I, just like anyone else with any sense, question the Bible from time to time. (EX: gay marriage, I'm for it.) I believe in God, I try my best to behave as if he were watching me, but I don't go to church every week and most certainly don't base my opinions on the Bible/Catholic religion.

I'm against abortion because of morals and ethics -- I think it's wrong to end a life. But I, in no way, contrived my views on the religious teachings of the Bible or Jesus Christ.

And I took a personal oath of celibacy a while ago, not because of religion, again, but because of my own personal morals.

Just thought I'd respond to your curiosity and let you know there are people out there who are against abortion for non-religious reasons.

Again, I would rather see people like Osama Bin Laden rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Death is too easy of a solution for them. They should have to serve their time.

Anyways, from a Christian standpoint, yes, the death penalty is also against the Christian teachings, and in my humble opinion, it is not enough of a deterrent to stop people from committing heinous crimes.

The justice system needs to be harsher, and punishment should be more suited to the crime. Another reason why I'm particularly interested to see what happens in the debate about whether 16 & 17 year old felons (specifically, murderers, I believe) should be put to death, which has come up in the news as of late.

My question is this: when has the President made a decision wholly based upon his religion? When has Bush, in his 3+ years in office, based a decision in American politics soley on his Christian faith?

He hasn't.

He uses his faith to help him make judgements, but he certainly hasn't led the "catholic" president that people are now making him out to be, or that they poked fun at Kennedy before he was elected.

GWB uses his faith as a guide. Like he said in the debate, his faith is a part of him.

I don't see how someone with strong faith, regardless of your feelings on religion, is a negative. He has conviction and beliefs; where is the crime in that?

If people we're really concerned he was going to be some religious zealot, he wouldn't be on the ballot. I mean, how many muslims will we see on the ballot, ever in our lifetimes? Lieberman is the closest, and as long as were at it, I'm surprised nobody brought up the fact that he is a Jew.

Anyways, my point is this. I don't think that President Bush, because he believes in God, uses his religion to wholly dictate his Presidential decisions. Does he use it to find strength? Sure. Does he go to the Bible, and find wisdom it it's words? Most likely.

But clearly, with the war on terror, he usage of the embryonic stem cells (the leftovers from the Clinton admin, which Bush had no control over), etc. exemplifies how despite Bush's faith, he is not bound with regards to representing an equal America for all people.

---

That being said, I don't understand why it seems as though the very small minority thinks it should be allowed to push a majority around.

I'm referring to the attempts by an atheist to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegience.

Now, back a few years ago in high school (and even middle school), they made it perfectly clear that while you didn't have to say the pledge, you at least had to be respectful and keep silent.

Nothing wrong with that.

But why, upon a country that is built upon the foundations that there are "certain unalienable rights, bestowed by a divine creator" must the words "under God" be stricken? Does it specifically pertain to one "god?" No. It doesn't say it's Jehovah, or Christ, or Allah. It is not a symbol of religion inasmuch as that it is a symbol that people felt a connection to some form of higher power the governed the world as we know it.

We don't really know that for sure, though, do we?

I'm not saying he has, but I don't think you can state with certainty that he hasn't.


Lieberman is the closest to what? Being a Muslim, or being a religious zealot?

I certainly don't think you can compare his religious zeal to Bush's.

One of the main things that concerns me about Bush is his statement that he's doing "God's work"

And BTW, Lieberman's practice of Orthodox Jewry gave me great pause in thinking about whether or not I wanted to vote for Gore. And I'm Jewish, altho I don't practice the religion or believe in God.

Like a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage?

I do, TIS !!!

I also remember Jane saying woefully, straight into the camera after the HUGE laugh has subsided....

"I'm sorry mom, it's my job!"

Years later in an interview Curtain mentioned the apology truly was to her mother who was watching; she felt very uncomfortable ripping open the blouse but it was written into the sketch and she had to do it.

I just love 'behind-the-scenes' stories, don't you...???



Apple

Like a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage? [/b][/quote]Being against gay marriage is not necessarily a religious decision, though I'm sure it plays a part in Bush's thinking.

What about abortion and embryonic stem cells? Clearly that isn't expressing the rights for the unborn...

You misunderstand.....

I'm not saying his anti-gay marriage stance stems from his religious convictions, although it may.

I'm questioning your statement that "he represents an equal America for all people"

What I don't understand is why do people feel the President is a "strong" leader?

Another is the constant remarks from known GOP faithful that the President is "carrying on the mantle of Reagan"...

First off, Reagan was charismatic and was a pro in campaigner and debating. UNLIKE you know who.

Second, yes Europeans didn't approve of many American actions in the 1980's(like the air strike against Libya for example) but while I'm not for such things as a "Global Test", did Reagan totally alienate traditional allies? Hell, he even ordered an invasion of a member nation(Grenada, in case you primitive screwheads didn't know ) state of the British Commonwealth, and the US/UK relationship isn't strain to the point like between US and France.

Fact is, I felt Reagan was a GOOD President, but this stooge in the White House trying to use his name as a facade to the faithful that he is something that he "aint"....thus why me, an actual traditional Republican party man, will vote for Kerry.

P.S. - As for Iraq...is it me or is the non-ability to "finish the job" involving Iraq a family trait with the Bush clan?

P.S.S. - I think Kerry is a piss-poor counter-choice to the Dubya. Me, I rather wish Wesley Clark or even Edwards(if only because his face doesn't scare little children and puppies to death like the Vietnam War hero, and basically is the non-chipmunk fat version of Clinton) but I hate to use this term since I think its idiotic in nature, but...."Lesser of the Evils".

I consider myself and Independent because I don't support the Democratic party 100 %. I definetly like the Democrats more, but I don't agree with them on some certain things, such as welfare benefits for legal immigrants. It has nothing to do with not liking Republicans or Democrats. If one is a registered Democrat or Republican, then one is pretty much looked at to vote for that party. -Pat