www.dailykos.com

Gang Signs: Abortion, Evolution, Homosexuality
by bernardpliers
Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM PDT
Why is it that abortion, evolution, and homosexuality form a block of issues for the GOP base? I will cut to the chase - these are not religious issues, these are issues of tribal identity.

OK. The Roman Catholic Church is officially anti-abortion, as are many Protestant churches. They base their opposition on Biblical arguments, and assert that abortion is a sin and an offence against God. Yep, no religious implications there.

We know that the people who worry the most about these issues seem to have little real regard for children, little interest in science, and they like to get freaky at least as much as anyone else. And despite their self proclaimed religious motivations, surveys show their knowledge of religion is surprisingly poor.

How do we know these things? The Catholic Church, for example, runs the largest charity in the United States. Much of its work is dedicated to the well-being of children (as the Church defines it). There are a large number of professed Christians who are scientists, and many Christians I have met are very interested in science. So please justify your assertions. As to knowledge of religion, one need not be a theologian to be devout. There is a strong thread in Christianity that touts the virtues of a simple faith.

Why do these issues move people to violence, while they barely register to the rest of us?

These issues move a microscopic fraction of religious people to violence, and any implication to the contrary is simply dishonest.

As to the rest of it, I can't be bothered to refute this rubbish. I'll simply say that whatever you say about them applies to your gang and your blind hatred of people who fall on the other side of issues from yours.

ouch. You must claim a high price in your practice.

You actually can state that that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has a strong standing with children's welfare with the amount of abuse children have suffered at the hands of catholic priests?
yea, though we walk through the valley of out - of - court settlements, we should fear no pedophile? Where are you cumming from (no, that's not a typo)?

You must be a defense attorney - I'd ask you who you defend, but from your comments here, you're one of those that holds personal business ethics above general morals you hold dear, and I'm sure you won't answer, due to the legal privilege you hold dear.

(Please note that this article is not from my pen, but I accept the responsibility for posting it.)

there have been Evangelicals that have come out in the defense of science, but they still number in the minority, and have caused a political stir within the diocese of both catholicism and Episcopalians, leading to a drop in the number of traditional curch participation, and thee outgrowth of independant sects that are militant, but don't have the length of influence that creates the violence muslims have through constant minorities.

Do we want to endorse a battle amongst the minorities, or do we want to endorse theological union, through the recognition of an indefinable higher poower, that all religous people subscribe to? monotheism is the name of the game, but the name of the producer isn't mattel, or Democracy, Or socialism, or communism.

It is truely unpronouncable, like the name of "God."

I think if we use this as an analogy in the greater effort to understand the underlying problem, what's posted here does add a valuable perspective, though I don't think it good to take this at face value as strictly gospel either.

the gospel of sky:
Chapter 117, Verse 762.
I'm just bustin' your balls - continue, please...

In short, I like your post Seuss.
Greater perspective is always good, even when we don't like what we see.

The gang thing absolutely has truth to it.
Yes, and it applies evenly to all aspects of society, including supposed liberals and the educated who should know better.

Yea for our team, because we're the most rightest!

I find your personal insults tedious. Until you can conduct an argument without them, piss off.

I just missed your perspective, Jubal -
you bailed out.

where've you been?

Oh but your insults, obviously, are quite justified and acceptable?
Counselor, counsel thy self.

Lets break it down boys.....
I am a christian but let me give you a reasonable reason why these issues SHOULD be thwarted.
Abortion: YEOUCH!!! Abortion was an instrument used in Nazi Germany. The idea: to rid the populance of the "undesirables" Abortion does more harm than good to a society and to women both physically and mentally.
Evolution: LOL!!! There is NO legitimate proof of evolution which is why it is a theory otherwise it would be fact. In every instance of documented evolution evidence, the proof had been doctored in some form ie. Piltdown man: the only bone they found was a jaw bone and of course his wife lucy: the only bone they found was a knee bone and they found it several thousand miles from the Pilt dude. If you choose to believe in Evolution thats fine BUT there is no real evidence.\
Homosexuality: Yeah. Because homosexuality is promoted through the population reduction program established at the UN I really don't give it much credence but aside from the fact that homosexual behavior is the primary source of AIDS I really don't think it should be a practicing behavior.

As a Christian of another breed, let me respond to Jim here.



Throwing out the Nazi card that fast? Nazis used Religion as a reason to kill far more people then they did with Abortion. So if going by your reasoning...you get the idea I am sure.



Hey, technically Gravity is still a theory!! Does that mean we can expect it to be false as well? Jim. I would love to debate this subject in detail with you, if you like. Care to make a new thread in Science about it? I am sure the others of this forum would just love two Christians going at it over Evolution vs Crap.



If that is all you got in your corner, this is going to be short and sweet. Hell Green dude wont even need to make an appearance. Just let me know when you wish to debate this in a new thread in Science. I will let you start it.



Do you have proof that Homosexuals are spreading aids around more then straight people? We can go to Africa and ask them if you like. Why do you even care what two grown people are doing? Why does it effect you? How does it even effect you?


Seuss - I like this article. Religion is very tribal. I know the guy wasn't even really talking about Religion, but tribalism and how it uses the EXCUSE of religion to keep the "herd" in check. Do not worry, there are still people around who have reading comprehension and don't just jump on key words, completely missing the point.

Well, for #s 1 and 3 you're free to opt out, so they're non-issues.

For #2, tell me: What evidence would you be willing to accept? How much proof do you need?

Uh, if for some unknown reason every gay person on the planet were to suddenly disappear, we'd still have a continuing world wide aids epidemic.

This is one of the religious right wings big buggaboo's.
Do you people still believe that Aids is Gods revenge for homosexuality?

Nice brush size there.

All of you who consider your selves one of the Calvinist fundamentalists on the right wing of religion,
please raise your hand.

Polluting the well. The fact that Nazi Germany did something does not make it inherently bad. They created a pretty kick-ass highway system, too. The morality of abortion should stand on its own regardless of any policies the Nazis had.


Having come from a Catholic background, I am familiar with this argument. Yet, I have failed to hear one convincing reason why. Enlighten me. I somehow thought it made for a better society when every child was wanted and women didn't live in perpetual servitude to their own bodies and anything that happens to be growing inside them.


Hoo boy, now you've gone and done it. Look, "theory" in science is not the same as the "theory" you come up with as to why your watch went missing. The connotation is completely different. There are no facts in science, inasmuch as everything is subject to revision with the addition of new empirical data. However, the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection as it currently exists is perhaps one of the most uncontroversial theories in the scientific world today. Evolution is not only made apparent in the fossil record, but is also a logical consequence of molecular genetics as we understand it. If our theory of evolution is in error, so is most of modern Biology. And if you want to take it a step further and try and validate more of the fundamentalist Christian view, then almost all of modern Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Paleontology, and Astronomy is in error as well. Make no mistake about it--the "choice" to believe in evolution is not intellectually equivalent to the choice to have religious faith. One is based on empirical observation. One is not. That does not mean religious faith is bad, but trying to bring evolution to the same playing field as "mere belief" weakens Religion far more than it weakens science.


Uh, you do realize that Piltdown Man was exposed as fraud, right? No one is toting that as evidence of evolution. Biological anthropology still has its debates, but to take those debates as a lack of consensus that evolution has occurred is laughable. I highly doubt you're interested in hearing the incredibly long, strongly supported case for why evolution is the most likely and consistent worldview of species history, but if you are, I'm sure NYgreenguy and I can fill it in. Take, for instance, the remarkable similarities in the phalanges (finger) bones across all members of the tetrapod lineage, from frogs and lizards all the way up to humans and even whales (yes, whales have finger bones in their fins that are remarkably similar to their land-dwelling cousins). Take a look at even smaller things, like flu viruses. The reason we need to continually develop new strains of flu shots every year is directly due to evolution and mutation. If that's not convincing evidence that evolution can occur over even short time spans, I don't know what is. The human mind has a genuinely difficult time grasping the amount of time it takes for what we commonly call "macro" evolution to occur, but if you look at the amount of variation just a few hundred years of selective dog and horse breeding has produced, it does not take much imagination to see that every variation we can see could have been selected for in the course of hundreds of millions of years.


1. That is a bold-faced, completely baseless accusation if I've ever heard one, especially considering we have it well documented that homosexuality has existed for at least thousands of years before the UN.
2. You are mistaken that homosexuality is a source of AIDS (and again, that's poisoning the well. Just because something is risky does not make it wrong. It's wrongness should stand on its own). It became known as a "gay disease" in the 1970's and 1980's primarily due to the lack of safe sex practices and lack of knowledge about HIV. Humans and their behaviors do not "cause" disease. Humans are only transmitters, and straight people transmit the disease just as effectively. The likely source of HIV is SIV, an auto-immune disease that affects our nearest cousins, monkeys and apes, which successfully made the jump across species (precisely how is still a matter of some controversy). Of course, if you don't buy the evolution thing, then it's simply weird coincidence that we're so much like other primates, so SIV couldn't be a source of HIV...


And re: the OP, of course tribal, ethnocentric beliefs can be cast in a religious light and vice versa. That's simply the nature of human ideologies. There's a reason why scarcity of resources tends to exacerbate ethnic tensions, as has occurred in Rwanda and is currently happening in Sudan. Humans are pretty good at coming up with reasons they think they're justified in killing other humans. It's not enough that they're drinking the water we want, it's that they have these beliefs and practices that make them sub-human! So let's get the bastards!

The cops function as a well funded street gang. Military units do also.

Already assumption is flawing your arguments.



Show me some proof of the mental and physical harm done to women by LEGAL abortion, please. Then tell me why, as a woman, I should surrender my bodily autonomy to your Christian fanatacism.



Can you show me legitimate proof that God exists?
(oh, and ...Piltdown Man was a hoax...)



I'm amazed anew at the arrogance of the Christian male. Heterosexual behavior is the primary source of rape, spousal abuse, and divorce. The number one cause of death amongst pregnant women is murder - they're killed by their partners. I'm aghast that we continue to encourage the praticing of heterosexual behavior.

OK. I'll bite.

The article wasn't about the Catholic church, but rather about the identification of being "anti-abortion" as a uniting factor in the GOP base. It was about the reasons for being. Nobody was refuting that the Catholic church is anti-abortion on the basis of religious values. You are trying so hard to discredit something from Daily Kos, that you are inventing your own argument to win.




Stop thinking bombing-abortion-clinic-violence and think more GOP base style violence. You know, the violent-minded second-coming-craving invade-the Middle-East-convert-the-Muslims-nuke-Mecca, rebuild-the-temple-mount fundies. Yeah, there is a violent thread that runs through the bible beating morality pushers. Much more so than the peace and love bleeding-heart-tree-hugging-leftist-liberal commies the Christian right seems to despise so much.

The point of the article is that those moral issues that the GOP base hides behind are simply buzzwords that strike an emotional chord that they like to apply to themselves.

Were I the author, I'd probably just note how those underpinnings of the GOP base are all non-issues don't really affect us in our daily lives compared to the economy, healthcare, and foreign and domestic policies. The anti-gay anti-abortion anti-science crowd aren't really for anything. But they are against plenty. If that's not enough, they can slap the label of liberal on anyone or anything that they disagree with (or just makes them uncomfortable) and be against that too. Foreigners? Oh yeah, they got immigrants and the comically named "islamo-fascists" to be against as well. Faced with global warming where do the right wingers stand? In support of being good stewards of the earth? Hell, No! They gotta be against something. So along with opposing the mythical gay agenda and the fantasy liberal mediua, they are against the global warming alarmists.

And right wingers act appalled when we mention that their mindset is ripe for fascist blackshirt totalitarianism.

/ rant

Hell, I'll even take this further. if you could possibly lump "islamofascists", abortions, atheists, and gays, into one social group... you got the makings for a pretty good fascist movement. Politicking on the lowest form of human emotion, fear and hate, you could essentially move a large group of people to give up their rights, persecute their fellow citizens, and cheer about their freedom while doing it, all to rid society of this scourge. All you need is a label to blanket all of those things that the party base is against. Hmm... what would they call it? And it's gotta be good. It's gotta work well for the business elite as well as the the useful idoits. So we'd wanna lump in the trade unionists and the social activists. Hmmm... if only they could all be blanketed under one label... What would they call it...

Uh, to be completely honest boss, though nobody does it like the right wing christian fundi does, even us liberals are sometimes not above such positioning.


Southerner? Hillbilly? Cowboy? Redneck? Inbred? Coors Lite?


As human beings we have always made labels to identify good guy and bad guy.
We let the good guys into our camp while we wage war with the bad guys, in one way or another.

When we can point to someone else and make the claim of how terrible they are,
in doing so we emotionally elevate ourselves because, well, at least we're aren't that other idiot! (sheeple?)

The process of character assassination for the purpose of personal emotional gratification, which we're all guilty of at least once in a while, is not OK. And then of course you will have certain social organizations both small and large that will deliberately attempt to take advantage of this human truth. As the right wing fundi's do, then have Bushco attempt to take advantage of the right wing fundi's. Further, because their self imposed insecurity is so strong, they'll even ignore obvious flaws, even outright lies.

Recognising the beast for what it is, and being honest with self, is the first big step to denying it your space.

Sky, I'm referring to political positioning and the direction of a political movement. Not the random comments on message boards and callers to talk radio. When you hear Obama warning us of the dangers of Southerners, Hillbillies, Cowboys, Rednecks and inbred Coors Lite swillers pose to our nation the way Mitt Romney has warned his folks about the dangers liberals pose to our national security, you'll have a point.

I was responding to the assertion that there was no true religious motivation in opposing abortion, the teaching of evolution, and homosexuality.

Were you the author, I'd have far fewer (maybe no) problems with the article.

There was a senior fellow from the Heritage Foundation who put it best: "The reason we talk about God, guns, and gays is that nobody gets excited over cutting the capital gains rate."

I gotcha, Jubal. My misunderstanding.

LOL This is why I keep on coming back...
Look, I wasn't trying to change anyones mind on the subjects of abortion evolution or homosexuality. I really don't care whether you believe in them being an important social issue or not. BUT... When an agenda is set within our population, it is being done so to divide the people. Coming back to reality a minute and you would realize that compared to the one world fascist government coming, Abortion homosexuality and evolution are just like a grain of sand on a beach. I hold true to my beliefs on these issues not because you choose to believe what has been taught to you, but because my educational experiences have opened my eyes to the lies being propagated in order that personal responsibility would be replaced with a more socially acceptable accountability. These issues come directly out of the UN. Libertas your facts on Aids are all wrong. It couldn't have been known as a homosexual disease in the 70's, The first case of AIDS was reported in 1981. I'm not a history teacher so I don't want to thwart all of your comments. If you got all of your facts from the american educational system then bear in mind that the Secular Humanism movement began taking hold in the 40's and 50's and since that time the curriculum was changed to fit plan to eliminate personal responsibility. Think about it: Abortion is used to eliminate the possibility of taking personal responsibility, Evolution teaches that YOUR not accountable to and supreme being (again eliminating PR) and last but not least Homosexuality, I'm not going to refute this because I already know what your arguments will be BUT It's called the Human Reproductive System for a reason....

Prior to that, AIDS was not a known disease, but it likely existed during the 70's as well (and possibly before that in sub-Saharan Africa)--but you are partly correct in that it didn't become known as a "gay disease" until the 80's. It's simply that no one knew what it was. In either case, AIDS was not spawned by the gay community. It simply flourished there due to a lack of safe sex practices and due to the fact that anal sex is a particularly effective way of transmitting the virus.


So in that time, the "secular humanism movement" managed to completely alter all historical documents and completely alter the mind states of every single American? Impressive, even for a vast right/left/global conspiracy. Nice assumptions about me, by the way. No good historian takes anything from a textbook at face value.


Yes. And the reason is that we named it that. I could just as easily start calling it the Human Gay Sex System and it wouldn't change a thing about the nature of the hardware involved.

So I take it that you are opposed to all non-procreative sex then?

Every living thing on the planet has a repoductive system.
MOST living critters expect, or hope to procreate everytime they engage in sex.

Humans are fortunate. We are given as a part of our evolution, recreational sex.
Sex for humans includes emotional bonding as much as physical. The animals don't.


Aids, the gay disease. That's simply stupid, and a perfect, (see, i'm better than that) BS line for the right wing fundies.
By the way. Right wing fundies also get aids. And most of those who do suffer for their associating it with gays.

No kidding. Look at how they stripped the word "God" out of the Constitution! It's a wonder nobody noticed at the time.

Next thing you know, they'll append a list of dangerous humanistic values to the beginning of the Constitution. They'll call it a "preamble" or something...

Coz you don't know when you're beat?


Considering that extreme nationalism is one of the primary hallmarks of fascism, how do you think they'll get a world fascist government going? Or are you misusing the term fascist where you really mean totalitarian?


It's a good job you're not a history teacher. There is no secular humanism movement. Insofar as paranoid rightwingers think there is, it started in 1963 with the Supreme Court's Lemon decision. And you're showing all the classical signs of basement-dwelling paranoia: making up organizations that want to control you, assuming everyone else is a hoodwinked sheep and ONLY YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, &c.


Rubbish. Abortion is a choice.


Care to explain why humans are the only extant species in which sex has been de-linked from reproduction? Or are you just going to keep slapping labels on things and pretending that's an argument?

To quibble only slightly, this is also true of bonobos, our closest relatives.

I'll trust you on that. Bonobo sex is not one of my areas of interest, close relatives or not.

Generally, I don't really care, or even wanna know what my relatives are doing.

especially when they're gay.

I'm guessing that what you're trying so ineptly to say is that evolution teaches that you're not accountable to a supreme being?

I'm still waiting for you to show proof of the existence of God.

Don't worry, be happy [ & Gay],

You'll get your own proof when its time.

You've got a messiah in larry craig.

sometimes god acts in mysterious ways.

HA - it would be just my luck to get a mens room messiah.

So is using "protection"in one way or another is it not a chance to take personal responsibility as well?

I know women who have had multiple abortions (6,7,9).(which I personally find ridiculous) They chose not to be responsible and use BC. They also chose not to be responsible and raise any children. The kind sir may be pointing out that abortion is usually used to correct a percieved "mistake" when saying they are shirking responsibility.

It is too often seen as an easy way out for women and their partners rather than taking precautions before hand IMO.

The kind sir can keep his hands, thoughts, and laws out of other people's pants. If the Ninth Amendment means anything, it must mean that.

Either you're alright with the morality of abortion or you're not. It's not an "I'm ok if it's a last resort but not ok if it's used as birth control" type of proposition.

Abortions are expensive and intrusive. Birth control is reasonably cheap by contrast. So it seems to me anyone using abortion as a primary means of birth control is a little less than bright, but hardly immoral in my book.

And fwiw, how is correcting a mistake not taking responsibility. The argument here seems to be that birth control and child rearing are "responsible," but abortion is not, and it seems like all that's being done is slapping on labels. I'm not convinced. To me, having a child you neither truly want nor can afford is far more irresponsible to everyone involved than having an abortion.

I'm reporting you to POAC for sane, intelligent comments. Expect to be banned!

Indeed, we can't have this sort of stuff.
Why, it might become popular and then where will that lead?

The men who impregnated those women 6, 7, 9 times could also choose responsibility. They could use condoms. Better yet they could abstain from sex until they were ready for fatherhood - or get a vasectomy.

It's not the men's fault. Women are vessels of sin who only want to steal men's purity. Poor lads never had a chance.

Oh absolutely BC should be a shared responsibility..... or the one with 6 shouldn't have gotten pregnant by 5 men either .


Heres a question though, If a woman chooses to have an abortion, then it is her choice alone?Even if the man may want it? That is what the traditional argument is correct? The man shouldn't have any input?

If that is the case, what if the woman chose to have the baby when the man didn't want it? Why should he then be responsible for child support?

Her body, her choice.



I repeat - if a man is not ready for fatherhood, he should abstain from sexual intercourse until he is. Or get a vasectomy.

If a woman isn't ready , then shouldn't she also use BC? or abstain from intercourse?

Hello,
I never said AIDS was a gay disease, I said that homosexual lifestyle spreads it...

What about the heterosexual lifestyle?

Heterosexual behavior is the primary source of rape, spousal abuse, and divorce. The number one cause of death amongst pregnant women is murder - they're killed by their partners. I'm aghast that we continue to encourage the praticing of heterosexual behavior.

What do you have to say about this?

So, is it your opinion that these women would make pretty good mommys to 6,7 or 9 kids? Or would they be a suitable punishment for her irresponsible ways?