Since Christianity only counts if you're a right wing fringe political extremist now.
I do take offense at this comment. To make this true, you'd have to annialate almost ALL Southern Democrats....since most Democrats down here in the
bible belt area are HIGHLY religous, pro-life, save-the-whales typs (I find them that believe this more consistant than Democrats who want to kill
babies yet save trees because the trees are precious but the babies get in the way of mommy's social life. The other type I'm talking about think
that life is precious PEROID.), church going with leadership roles. (Hell, that's about half the white catholics, and almost all the black baptists.
Then you have the Church of Christ: some believe that our faith should effect how we vote, and others believe that it's a matter of giving Caezar
his due, and they take the seperation of church and state EXTREMLY serously.) ....In the end, down here, I've never seen problems with Democrats and
their church, as long as they showed proper respect for the living (they could even be pro choice, as long as they don't get into the morality side
of it. It is then that a million and one verses come up about life being precious.) As it is, me being a republican, I've said things that are
directly pro-gay...as I am technically gay (gasp!!!), and I've been a bit shakey on what to do when the baby endangers the mother's life...even as
my nephew did to my sister in law. I love him, but because of him, my sis-in-law may need a liver transplant (rare diesase, can't accomodate kids).
Guess what, I'm still in a position of authority--I teach 8 year old girls from hell
; my belief, with them being that young, most certainly
does effect how they deal with their faith. Yet who is going to remove me? I'm mor elikely to resign because my job is interfering with my being
there on Sunday mornings.
What if that Gay employee every day announced to all customers he was gay, gay, gay, gay, and... gay!
I see it all the time. Some of my direct coworkers are like that.....they won't be fired, either. Even when they so obviosuly drool over the
It is a constitutional issue they way that blacks being slaves was a constitutional issue BEFORE the amendments for blacks were passed. We have a
document that goes on about HUMAN rights, yet allowed slavery? ...It was because, at that point, blacks wern't considered human...they were animals,
and treated as such...to the point where provisions were writtn in the constution on how the black vote was to be used while they were still slaves.
Again, it's like a woman's right to vote. There was nothing agains women voting, in fact the way the constitution was worded, the women's right to
vote amendment was never really needed, but was put there to shut the fighting down...and to make sure that the interpretations of future udges would
not stop women from voting. It's the same with the fetal tissue/ babies. The arguement is over whether they are human. With Terry, it's an
argument over whether or not she is really LIVING. ..as a dead human is not covered by the constitution. If babies are human before they leave the
womb, then they are to be protected BY the constitution, just as born children are...but because there are arguments over whether this is so, an
amendment will have to be passed to protect their rights, just like it was for the blacks...just a reinforcement of much of what was dealt with in the
constitution. (Remember, not all blacks were slaves, and as free men, they had the right to vote before the amendmentwas made, yet we eneded an
amendemnet for blacks to vote???) If Terry is still living, then she is protected by the constitution. ...unless this becomes a generational
argument, where we use this as an excuse to kill our grandparents, under the excuse of they aren't living because they can't do this that and the
other, it may not need to be reinfroced with an amendment, because the information is already there.