NOW tell me mixing Religion and Politics is harmless:

[Tyler Durden]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3065013&mesg_id=3065013

A FETUS is a PERSON. WONDERFUL.

Don't even START with your "foot in the door/it's ok to pray in the Council Meetings" BULLSHIT.

THIS is what breeds contempt for your Religions in people of this community. You will NEVER see the Far Right Fringe of ANY of your sects NOT trying to impose their standards and will on the rest of us.

THIS is why we do not wish to permit them to get their foot in the door, no matter how "harmless" someone thinks it its.

The Nazis started in one little beer hall in Munich.

[Az]

1. Sorry, but you need a functioning brain to be a person

If at any time someone has developed a functioning brain we can extend them consideration of continued personhood(ie a coma patient). But until there is evidence of a mind being present or even capable of being present there is no person there. A person is not any part of a human body. It is the cognitive ability to be self realizing and sapient. And without a Cerebrum thats not even possible. And there is no cerebrum present in a fetus until some time around the third trimester. So prior to that the notion of a fetus being a person is fantasy. There is no reality to it. Potential is not equivalence. No brain no person. Its really that simple.

[booksenkatz]

3. You would THINK that some of these religious types

would be the first ones to say that the body IS NOT the person, but that the soul is just a temporary occupant of the body. I haven't been to a church in decades, but I know there is something in the Bible about God breathing life into something -- before he did so, the being was not considered alive. Maybe someone can find that passage and post it.

It's irritating how so many religious people stop caring AFTER the good ole breath o' life has been given to a being. They revere the body more than the soul. Quite the opposite of what was represented by their God in their book. It's fun to challenge them about their duality -- I once asked a pro-war Catholic how he felt about his own pope being anti-war, he never did get back to me on that. Prior to that, he'd told me that he believed the pope was infallible.
:crazy:

[Az]

6. That was the traditional Judeo/Christian take on it

Based on Chapter 2 of Genesis.

Genesis 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It was believed that the soul entered they body with the first breath. The anti abortion crowd is unknowingly fighting for a specific Catholic view. It was an encyclical of the Pope in 1968 called Humanae Vitae that established the Vatican's official position as opposing both abortion and birth control. With the US Supreme Court handing down the Roe V Wade decision a few years later in 1973 the Vatican saw us as a threat and entered into a concerted effort to overturn US law. A group of Catholic Bishops and Cardinals were called together to form a group that was to begin creating grass roots movements to overturn the law of the land. It was one of these people that approached Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and showed them how to turn the emotional issue of abortion into a money making system.

It is ironic to me that the religious right claims that the abortion industry is an evil money making scheme designed to undermine women. Every time a televangelist goes off about abortion you can be sure there is a plea for money coming right behind it. Emotional issues are what they use as leverage to pry open wallets. And whether a fetus is a person or not matters little if the someone is thinking of them as a person. Then all the evangelist has to do is make an emotional appeal to that tiny helpless baby and the money comes pouring in. I would not be surprised to find that the antiabortion movement takes in more money than the actual clinics that perform abortions. I would love to dig up some numbers on that.

[booksenkatz]

18. Thanks for that, Az

I was going to say Adam, but as one who rejected Christianity back in about 1979, I was not going to dare to trust my dusty old brain cells in that department! The rest of your post is informative, indeed. It's all terribly sad, because people often forget that these laws and doctrines and schools of thought and philosophical discussions and tussles actually translate into suffering for women AND for unwanted babies.:(

[digitalbuddha]

14. It's all about baptisms

Or so I understand it. It was explained to me that a big part of the angst the right feels about unborns is because if it is not baptised then it goes to hell and so they want to make sure it gets born first. They don't stop caring once the baby is born, they just try to convert it from that point.

[Az]

20. Welcome to DU and yes, that is a big issue

But even baptism doesn't do it. Unless they have accepted Jesus as their personal savior they still die in their sins (original sin). This was a major crisis for the Catholic Church a long time ago so they invented Limbo as a holding place until judgment day when all the dead babies would then be absolved and welcomed into heaven. But they recently fessed up that this does not fit with what scripture claims so they rejected the idea of Limbo. Instead they simply said "We don't know what happens to dead babies but we trust in God to do the right thing." Translation, "what the doctrine says really sucks so we are just going to believe that something else happens."

The problem of dead babies is it creates a very emotional issue and contradicts the very sense of fairness. According to doctrine we are all born in sin due to the actions of Adam and Eve. So no one gets a free pass. Only by accepting Jesus as their savior can their sins be cleansed. But in the case of babies they clearly do not have the capacity to even understand the idea of Jesus let alone accept him. And they are nearly the definition of innocent in our thinking. But according to the doctrine they must go to Hell. They are unrepentent of original sin and do not accept Jesus. And that means a one way ticket to the warm place.

Each denomination comes up with its own rationalization as to how to get dead babies out of Hell. But its all just rationalization. The bible is quite clear that we are born in sin. Original sin attaches the moment you are born (or conceived if you are to take the fundamentalist view). And that creates an emotional crisis. No mother wants to believe that their dead baby is suffering in Hell for no good reason. Thus the issue of dead babies highlights the very core of injustice and tyranny inherent within the core doctrine of Christianity. Infinite punishment for a limited finite crime. And in the case of a dead baby the crime is simply having been alive for a short time. No matter how small the crime if one dies without accepting Jesus the punishment is infinite in scale. There is no justice there. There is only threats and tyranny to keep people believing and propagating the belief.

[booksenkatz]

21. What an uncaring God is their God

to send an innocent baby to Hell? Which I don't believe in either, by the way. So their belief is that God creates a life inside another person, but due to the actions of the person (abortion), God sends the BABY to Hell? Because it made the "mistake" of not being born? The assumption there, too, is that God is powerless to stop the trip to Hell -- he throws up his mighty hands in despair over something he cannot control?

I've always questioned how Christianity works, even when I was a child, none of this ever made sense to me, and I finally rejected it when I took an honors-level Survey of Major Religions class at college in 1979. By then, I was done with all of them. The best way I have been able to define myself is a Deist-leaning-Agnostic: I feel that there is very possibly, or even probably, something out there, but if it is, it doesn't care about us one way or the other. Which is also sad and uncaring, however, I don't profess to have, or to desire, a close relationship with God, the way Christians do.

Welcome to DU, by the way!:hi:

[unpossibles]

27. "he never did get back to me on that"

they never do, and never will.

In my experience, actually challenging someone to think about their beliefs and to consider the inconsistencies makes them shut you out and/or insult you.

I honestly think that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in dealing with both the 23% club and the hardcore fundamentalists: they cannot seem to be able to admit they were wrong about anything, because to them that shows weakness and that they were able to be fooled, which in turn means they are wrong about everything in their own minds. To a binary either/or thinker, there is no middle ground between right and wrong, and when you show them that middle ground, they just shut it out.

Ironically, in many ways it's just simple pride: they are too proud to admit that maybe they were wrong about just about anything, or if they do, it's very superficial. That Reverend in Colorado never admitted to screwing a gay hooker for meth, just that he was tempted to do so, yet is cured now! Hallelujah!

[Tyler Durden]

4. Yeah? Tell THEM that.

GOD tells them when a human is a person.

Fight THAT once the foot is in the door.

[Az]

8. Thats not my god

And according to the laws of this land they can't make it my god. I don't even have to have a god. Not in the land of the free. If that paper (the Constitution) means anything any more at least.

[Tyler Durden]

11. Not according to most of the Religious folks replying here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2271134

According to them, we should just "Get over it," "It's a TRADITION," "It doesn't hurt anything," and I've "got my panties in a bunch."

Let them get their foot in the door, they kick you out of the house.

[Clark2008]

9. Umm.... I think you need to go back to science class.

The brain develops at 16 weeks, which is still in the first trimester.

That said, it doesn't function like a brain as we know it (cerebral cortex function) until the second trimester.

Babies can be born at 20 weeks and survive - in fact, it's not the lack of brain development that causes death at that age - it's lack of lung development.

[Az]

15. It is not fully formed at that point

Still a lot of development necessary before the Cerebrum forms. And the Cerebrum is quite necessary for sapient awareness.

What you are describing is the development of the brain stem. And yes the body can survive for a time with just they brain stem functioning. There are even cases of births with no upper portions of the brain being present. This condition is called anencelphaly. And they can survive for a time in this state. But there is no person present within this form as there is no Cerebrum. So yes it is very possible for a baby to be born at a very early stage and survive. But if the brain is not fully formed there is not a person there. Despite it being alive and looking like a person. Its not just appearances that count in this matter. Nor is it just life that counts. A person is not just alive. They are alive and sapient. Self aware. Thinking.

[SidDithers]

19. 16 weeks is still first trimester? Really?

You're sure about that?

Sid

[unpossibles]

28. and I thought my months were long... nt

[smoogatz]

39. For walruses, yes.

People, not so much.

[cutlassmama]

46. Life begins at viability. Close to what you are saying.

If the fetus is "viable" can live outside the womb, then it becomes a person. If not, first trimester and part of second trimester it is not a "person". It is just cells. I personally don't believe in third trimester abortion because the fetus is viable at that point, but I am okay with first and early second trimester abortion.

[MindPilot]

10. But you would still be qualified for the office of President.

It had to be said...

[Az]

16. Oh I know

Every time I throw this argument out there I am waiting for the inevitable Bush joke. And to be honest I would be disappointed if they didn't come. Its like setting out a table of pies at a three stooges festival and no one throws any of them.

[alarimer]

36. So Bush is not a person then

And most right-wingers do not even have half a brain.

[MNDemNY]

45. So if bush is not a person?....................

[Ian David]

2. Does this mean they're gonna lower the legal drinking age by 9 months? n/t

[MindPilot]

5. And can I retire nine months earlier?

Since I grew up in Denver, I think I should seek reparations from the state of Colorado for making me wait nine extra months to get my driver's license.

[bryant69]

7. I don't know - I mean this is obviously an awful development

That said I guess I don't know how you prevent the mixing of religion and politics. A religious person carries his or her faith whereever he or she goes. Whether that be to the grocery store, the dry cleaner, the political rally, or the voting booth.

I could also point out that some of the far right in this country is non-religious.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tyler Durden]

12. But they're not saying much, are they?

AND they don't seem to care much what happens as long as they get to run the show.

HELL of a way to run a railroad in my opinion.

[MindPilot]

13. you prevent the mixing of religion and politics

by keeping it out of government. No one is saying you can't base your personal decisions and choices on whatever you believe. But when government uses religion to make those choices for you, then we have a problem.

In other words, if you think abortion is wrong, don't have one.

[bryant69]

17. Is voting a personal decision ?

Either as an individual citizen voting or as a senator/legislator/representative? I mean if I go into the voting booth, aren't I going to vote based on my values, which include my religious values (In my case that means supporting Edwards)?

As for your last line, you are aware how unsatisfying that sounds to people on the other side of the fence? I think Abortion is one of those issues where it doesn't hurt to consider how the other guy looks at it, even if you don't agree (and for the record, I support reproductive freedom).

Bryant

[MindPilot]

22. Yes, voting is an intensely personal decision.

And part of what I vote for is someone who represents me so yes, it is impossible to separate that person's values from how they vote.

The problem arises when religious practices are codified into law say for example, pot is illegal but booze is not because Jesus didn't turn palm fronds into righteous bud. How ever it would be equally true to make war illegal because Jesus was a man of peace. Very tough issue and I don't pretend to have any answers, but I think the balancing act of the free exercise clause vs the establishment clause is a prime example of the smart mofos who wrote the instructions.

Yes I am very aware. In fact as I was writing that last sentence I was thinking about the Hiroshima thread and "this could just as easily be 'if you don't like atomic bombs, don't drop one.'" Doesn't really address the problem.

[redqueen]

33. There's a difference between carrying it with you and attempting to foist it on others. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

23. I'm afraid my political bent is based on and determined by...

I'm afraid my political bent is based on and determined by my faith. If it wasn't, I'd probably still be a Republican to this day. I cannot in good conscious separate the two, or maintain an absolute divide between my religion and my politics as one is wholly based on the other.

My attitudes, perceptions and opinions on environmentalism, the social safety net, food programs, immigration, national and international relations/diplomacy are all built on the foundation of my faith. Indeed, the very fact that I am a progressive is based on my faith.

Although I can't say with a great degree of certainty, I imagine that if I (I only) was not a person of faith, I'd still be a Republican worshiping at the altar of greed, exploitation and xenophobia.

I can't answer for nor be responsible for anyone else's standards except my own... regardless of whether it's translated into political agenda or just simple contemptuousness.

[Tyler Durden]

24. So because I am NOT a person of "Faith", I should just register Republican.

Without faith, I must be a low and evil person, "...worshiping at the altar of greed, exploitation and xenophobia."

You do realize how that sounds, don't you?

If the only thing keeping YOU on the side of Humanist Progressivism is your "Faith," I think you might want to do a little soul searching.

AND you owe a lot of people here an apology. I built MY progressive and other humanist attitudes by study and the desire not to be greedy, exploitive, or xenophobic. It had nothing to do with "God" or "Faith."

[unpossibles]

29. thank you!

I am sick of equating faith with morals - obviously, the world is full of either existing without the other and also both existing in spite of the other.

[Tyler Durden]

30. I STILL haven't gotten my apology.

I have put up with that "You don't believe in GOD???? You must not be a good person!" my entire life.

[unpossibles]

32. me too

I was told that by a guy who has been arrested for beating his wife, but HEY! He's a good Catholic, so I'm sure it's all forgiven. Meanwhile, I am a horrible monster because I am agnostic AND liberal.

:puke:

[LanternWaste]

35. Notice that I wrote parenthetically, "only I"

Notice that I wrote parenthetically, "only I"-- preemptively dismissing the notion that it would or could be applied to any one else. In fact, stating emphatically that that particular notion applies only to me. That without my faith, *I* would probably still be a republican.

Insults are an odd thing, wrote Weston, they can be found anywhere-- even in places where they do not exist.

[Tyler Durden]

42. Then I am profoundly sorry for you.

Your Humanism is based only on the strictures of a "Religion," and does not arise from the logical view of doing the right thing for its own sake. You make your religion sound like a goad or a threat, and that cannot be pleasant, because as you state, you deny your true nature.

This is not sarcasm. If you truly feel as you state, I do feel for you. If on the other hand, your religion opened your eyes to your selfishness and greedy nature as you stated it, then your conversion is good, but only if now you would feel the same if your religion was shown to be in error. If not, then we are back to using religion as a whip, rather than a tool for teaching.

[LanternWaste]

41. See also...

See also...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2281414

[Tyler Durden]

26. I repeat: I am not a "person of faith," so that makes me evil. Correct?

That's what you imply, that I cannot have progressive humanist attitudes, unless they are based on faith.

tap, tap, tap.

WAITING.

[LanternWaste]

44. No. That's what you inferred.

No-- I merely imply that without *my* faith, *I* would most likely still be a republican. That was not only implied, it was directly stated as such. If you wish to apply a that to anyone other than me, it would not be as I wrote it.

I made no mention of anyone other than myself. And I made a point to do just that.

So if you feel the need to wait and tap your feet, by all means.



"That's what you imply, that I cannot..."

No. That's what you inferred.

Ed: for spelling

[earth mom]

31. You don't need to follow a religion to have integrity, morals or live by The Golden Rule.

Because obviously many that follow religion in this country have NONE of the above.

[alarimer]

38. Most republicans claim to be people of faith as well.

And they would say you are not (by their standards).

[Lex]

25. Mixing politics with religion leads to things like the Taliban.

Always has, down through the ages.

That's why the Founding Fathers of this country were dead set against it.

[magellan]

34. So do we start getting Conception Certificates instead of Birth Certificates?

Date of Conception: Prom night -- but we were getting married anyway!!
Place: Either the back seat of your father's Ford or in the Denny's restroom off Highway 15, junction 6a.
Sex: Yes! Er, I mean...I'm only 5 weeks along. Can I fill this in later when we're able to TELL?
Attendant's name and title, certifying conception took place on the date and in the location listed above: :wtf:

[yoyossarian]

37. IF A FETUS IS A PERSON, THEN WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?

T-shirts, mugs, buttons n' cards featuring THIS
lovely lil' image at http://cafepress.com/laughcity">Laugh City

http://steponnopets.com/peo">President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

[Prophet 451]

40. Oh dear

One small note: I'm a Satanist. We don't have a far-right part of our sect and even if we did, proselytizing or trying to impose our morality on others is forbidden to us.

That aside, this really doesn't bode well. Chimpy has already packed the courts with extreme-right idealogues. There's a reason why religion should be a private matter: Mixing religion and politics brings out the worst in both.

[ThomCat]

43. Shit like this is why I think full civil rights for women

is the necessary first step we all need to get behind if we ever want to get full civil rights for everyone.

Women need to control their own bodies and their own lives. If they don't have those rights, if half the population can be made slaves to the religious convictions of others then there can never be civil rights for anyone.

[cutlassmama]

47. Yes! This is why I push so hard for either a woman or black

to become President. It is time! Time for civil rights to make people EQUAL!!!

[Festivito]

48. Would your fear of harm have you oppose democracy?

Or, should democracy be limited to only vote for things that you (and your buds) approve?