Now moving on to war -- I don't advocate fighting war just for the sake of fighting war. However, if our nation is under attack or its national security is threatened (and it was attacked on 9-11 and our national security is certainly under threat from ISIS and other wacko terrorist groups) than we must not only defend ourselves but search out and "neutralize" the threat.
Believing that abortion is murder would make you a likely domestic terrorist that would seek to "neutralize" the threat.
Christian extremism, holding the same belief as ISIL and the Taliban on abortion.
Right Wing Anti Choice Fanatics have passed lots of laws that infringe on individual freedom. The "fetus murder" is one of them. They have even proposed that male masturbation is "killing a human life", and wanted it to be a crime.
Scott Petersen was convicted and sentenced to the DEATH PENALTY(Ironic) in California. Not your bastion of right wing conservatism.
The United States is currently facing a very serious threat: a group of highly motivated and deeply committed religious extremists is currently attempting to take over the government and institute religious laws. These extremists are highly organized, willing to commit violence against those who oppose them, and are infiltrating every segment of our government in an attempt to remake the country’s policy in their own image. The policies which these extremists support include: controlling the lives and bodies of women, inserting religious dogma into public education, suppressing other faiths’ religious practices, writing laws which enforce religious morality over the secular public, and the re-writing of history in order to indoctrinate future generations into believing that these policies are the true values of the country. Based solely upon my description of these religious fanatics, many who read this would likely believe that the religion which these zealots follow is Islam, but they would be incorrect.
The religious extremists whom I speak of are not Muslims, but rather the extremist Christian fundamentalists who have attached themselves to the right wing. Recently, numerous politicians have not only rejected the idea of the “separation of church and state”, but have pushed policies based entirely upon conservative Christian teachings (ex. banning gay marriage based upon biblical passages); such policies are not based in factual evidence and have no place in the United States.
Ironically, it is often the very same politicians who fear-monger around the idea of Muslim religious law (Sharia Law), who support Christian religious laws that are the Christian equivalent to Sharia Law. With the blatant and pervasive propagation of imagined Sharia fear-mongering, it is tremendously hypocritical that our elected officials and media have not taken up arms over the very real threat of Christian religious law.
The United States is a purely secular country and any attempt to institute religious laws, regardless of the religion, should be fought be every American. Religious laws are contrary to American values and it makes no difference if the basis for such religious laws is the Bible, Koran, Torah, Manusmrti (Hindi caste text) or any other religious text. All too often, the media fails to frame religious laws as such, and simply lumps these unconstitutional laws into the conservative narrative—this is a terrible mistake and serves to conceal the religious justifications of proposed laws behind a veneer of political ideology.
Christian extremists in the United States have a long history of attempting to legislate sexual morality as well as control women. These extremists believe that their religious text–the Christian Bible—should be the base for determining what Americans are allowed to do in their bedrooms, who they should be allowed to love, and what level of control women should have over their bodies. Often, these religious fundamentalists conceal their religious laws by using moral arguments, but, given a little digging, it is usually easy to see the religious justifications behind these laws.
The infiltration of the government by religious fundamentalist is by no means a new phenomenon, but it has become worse in the past decade. The rise in power of the conservative movement has allowed the Christian conservative movement to gain a great deal of influence within modern American politics. Fringe Christian extremists—such as Santorum, Perry, or Bachmann—are seen as legitimate political candidates today, when they would have been laughed off of the stage even during the 2000 presidential election.
Abortion rights and affordable birth control are issues which are vital to the health and personal power of women in the United States. When women have control over their bodies and reproductive choices, they are able to participate in society on equal footing with men. Unfortunately, Christian extremists believe that their religion mandates the subjugation of women, thus are vitriolically anti-reproductive freedom; while they are not as blatantly restrictive of women as Muslim extremists in the Middle East, American Christian fundamentalist have demonstrated a persistent desire to control the choices of women. There is no rational explanation for the banning of birth control and any attempt to do so should be seen as what it is—the enforcing of religious dogma over society and an attack on women’s rights.
Many Christian extremists claim that their anti-abortion fervor comes from a desire to protect life, but this position is debunked by several inconsistencies. Christian fundamentalists are against birth control, sexual education, and spending on early-life care, thus it is obvious that they care little about reducing the number of abortions or protecting children; in essence, they only care about preventing women from controlling their bodies and are using the goal of “protecting children” as an excuse. In addition to their hypocrisy surrounding children’s welfare and abortion rights, many Christian fundamentalists support violence to end abortion rights. No rational human being can simultaneously claim to be pro-life, yet shoot or blow up abortion doctors for performing abortions for the women who want them.
It is possible for an individual to be anti-abortion on moral grounds, but not if their only arguments against abortion are the fact that their religious texts have been interpreted to say that abortion is a “sin”. Abortion may be a sin (sins are human constructs created to label religious taboos) but, as we aren’t a theocracy, there is no reason why the government should criminalize religious “sins”.
Preventing gay marriage from being legalized and blocking the granting of equal rights to same sex couples are two of the most common policies which modern Christian fundamentalists attempt to push on society as a whole. The justifications for attacking the rights of same-sex couples are nothing more than religious arguments and Christian extremists rarely attempt to conceal it. This blatant overreach of one religion into secular policy is rarely pointed out by the media, and only highlights how complacent the public has become about protecting the separation of church and state. The next time you hear a Christian fundamentalist politician promote an anti-gay agenda using religious justifications (I.E. Watch TV for 5 minutes), imagine that the politician is a Muslim, rather than a Christian, and is citing the Koran, rather than the bible; even though the situations are identical, in that they involve one religion attempting to legislate their religion, the outcry against Christian fundamentalist law is non-existent when compared to if they were Muslims. Religious laws are religious laws, regardless of the religion, and we must never allow any religious faith to control public policy.
Ultimately, it is up to the American people and the media to fight back against religious law and ensure that the only laws which are govern us are based entirely upon secular logic. The media must research the justifications behind laws and ensure that they are based in fact and the public good, rather than the writings of long dead religious figures. Once the media or, in the case of media failures, informed individuals, identify laws based upon religious arguments, the public must ensure that politicians are held accountable. Voters must vote out any politician who supports religious laws, regardless of party affiliation or whether their personal faith is being supported. The United States is not a theocracy and any attempt to insert religion into public policy is inherently un-American; we have seen the result of mixing church and state in countries like Saudi Arabia, and most of us don’t like what we see.
Believing that abortion is murder would make you a likely domestic terrorist that would seek to "neutralize" the threat.
What do you consider a Cesarean Section at 28 weeks to remove an unborn fetus that needs care outside the womb due to complications? A science experiment?
The Scott Petersen was convicted and sentenced to the DEATH PENALTY(Ironic) in California. Not your bastion of right wing conservatism.
Right Wing Christian Fanatics are everywhere... even on this very board!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ultimately, it is up to the American people and the media to fight back against religious law and ensure that the only laws which are govern us are based entirely upon secular logic.
Yes...This was the governing philosophy of the Communist Party and Soviet Union. Secular law can logically justify that preemptively killing a few to potentially preserve many, then it was a logically sound decision.
Court Could Decide If Chimpanzees Are Legal Persons LiveScience.com By Megan Gannon, News Editor 12 hours ago
The case of Tommy the pet chimpanzee goes back to court this week, and a group of judges could decide whether he should be recognized as a "person" under the law.
The organization advocating for Tommy will appeal a 2013 decision that denied the captive ape a writ of habeas corpus in New York.
A writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect people from unlawful detention. Last December, the Nonhuman Rights Project asked the state Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Tommy, a caged chimpanzee in Gloversville, New York. Tommy, the organization argued, was being held against his will in solitary confinement and should be released into a sanctuary that closely mimics a natural environment. [8 Humanlike Behaviors of Primates]
The state Supreme Court rejected the case at the time, but the Nonhuman Rights Project wants that decision reversed. Tomorrow afternoon (Oct. , representatives from the organization will appear in front of five judges at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department, in Albany, to argue that chimpanzees fit the definition of a "person."
If they are shut down again, the representatives will take their case to the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, said Steven Wise, the founder and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
Wise was emphatic that his organization is not seeking human rights for chimpanzees.
"Personhood is the legal word, but it's not synonymous with human," Wise told Live Science.
In a 65-page brief filed with the appellate court, the Nonhuman Rights Project draws on evidence from scientific studies to argue that chimpanzees are autonomous, self-aware, highly intelligent beings that fit the profile courts have previously used in recognizing "legal persons."
Because of the ongoing case, Wise and his organization are not allowed to communicate with Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery. (Wise said that Lavery and his lawyer have not submitted a brief to oppose the Nonhuman Rights Project and are not expected to appear in court on Wednesday.) Wise does not know much about Tommy's current condition other than that he appears to be alive, Wise said.
Because of the novelty of the case, Wise said he knew that the odds of winning right away were not very good, but he was encouraged by the response from the scientific and legal community when the case made headlines last year. (Months before the case even went to court, it was featured in a cover story in The New York Times Magazine.)
In another sign of encouragement, the appellate court in July granted a preliminary injunction to prevent Tommy's owners from removing him from New York State pending the court's decision. The court would only make such a move for cases that have some reasonable likelihood of success, Wise said. The organization is expecting a written decision a few weeks after the court date.
The Nonhuman Rights Project is also looking beyond habeas corpus cases; the organization is developing other causes of action and lawsuits on behalf of other chimpanzees and perhaps other animals, such as elephants, Wise said.
"It's really just the beginning," Wise said. "Win or lose, we will push forward."
Follow Megan Gannon on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
It IS, most certainly, a human life. However, you, .... Tonko and the other Pro-Death advocates ... .
But DV you CHEER for Tonko. Do you deny your very own words????????
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
But DV you CHEER for Tonko. Do you deny your very own words????????
WTF!!!! Do you keep a dossier of everything he's ever posted!!!!???? What a f**king no-life loser you must be. You're credibility just took another serious drop.
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,"
WTF!!!! Do you keep a dossier of everything he's ever posted!!!!???? What a f**king no-life loser you must be. You're credibility just took another serious drop.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
It's fair to ask DVR what changed with Tonko for him to suddenly change his position. Tonko supports the same issues he always supported. I would be curious to hear DVR's evolution of thought on Mr Tonko.
It's fair to ask DVR what changed with Tonko for him to suddenly change his position. Tonko supports the same issues he always supported. I would be curious to hear DVR's evolution of thought on Mr Tonko.
Nothing changed. There has been no "evolution of thought."
Just because I made a statement that he would be elected does NOT mean that I supported his election or reelection.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Nothing changed. There has been no "evolution of thought."
Just because I made a statement that he would be elected does NOT mean that I supported his election or reelection.
Well, actually, you said "we" would have a good year when predicting the democrats would sweep. I thought "we" implied you supported the Democrat candidates.
Logged
, representatives from the organization will appear in front of five judges at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department, in Albany, to argue that chimpanzees fit the definition of a "person."
