ybnormal

Therefore, you would say that this "mother" became "a pregnant women" simply by contemplating whether or not to have intercourse.


But you just can't stop yourself from doing it, huh? I have a spare dictionary if you want it.

May I ask then, whether you were pro or anti "redefining the English language" to make abortion more UNpalatable when some sneaky devil redefined it as "murder"?


Well, Mark, I believe, that as a man, it ain't none of my damned business to stick my nose into whatever ANY womyn does with her own damned body. MEN!!!

You're not gonna try to tell us that our Founding Fathers would never have thought up the idea of making murder & theft against the law had the bible not existed, are you Mark?

Thor Q. Mada

I think the by far most worrying thought is that they might then start working to have the final profecy come true and assist with an armageddon whereby they all can go to the right hand of their lord taking all of us into an early grave.

Alonzo Fyfe

I am afraid that I find this subject to be suffering from a lack of focus.

The original question presupposes that there is a level of uniformity in Christian thinking -- or even fundamentalist thinking -- that simply does not exist.

And there also seems to be some confusion over whether this discussion is over what would in fact happen if Christian Conservatives gained a comfortable majority in this government, and the dreams about what fundamentalists were do if they acquired dictatorial powers.

As a result, many of the debaters seem to be talking past each other, as each adopts their own set of vague assumptions.

Ultimately, I think that these ambiguities make it impossible to answer the question, which is why I have not participated in this particular thread. The question is a good one for prompting some ranting and some blowing off of steam, but I do not see how it will be possible get anything like a serious debate on the subject unless somebody gives the question a bit more focus.

The most relevant counter-point I have seen says that this question can be generalized to ask, "What would happen if the most extreme, arrogant, and intolerant members of Group X gained control of the power of government." The results would be disasterous no matter who "Group X" happens to be.

Because true evil does not ultimately spring from what one believes. It springs from arrogance and intolerance itself.

True virtue, on the other hand, requires some measure of modesty and humility -- a willingness to accept, "I am human. I may be wrong. So, out of respect for that fact and respect for others who disagree with me, let's not carry these policies to an extreme."

I think that, ultimately, this is what the 1st amendment is all about. "What you believe is your own business. When that belief approaches an arrogant extreme where you are seeking to impose that belief on others -- and seeking to control the reigns of government for that purpose -- at that point you must stop."

Moderation, tolerance, and humility in place of extremism, intolerance, and arrogance.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Oresta

Well, Alonzo, you certainly stopped my response to Layman cold in its tracks. Do continue.

daemon

Thank you, Alonzo. Much more eloquent than I could have put it.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

Corso

Alonzo, you are absolutely right. My original intention for this thread was to have a serious discussion of the true agenda of the Christian Right in America. Perhaps I should have said that instead.

Buffman

Corso

My original intention for this thread was to have a serious discussion of the true agenda of the Christian Right in America.

First, unless one knows exactly what constitutes "The Christian Rignt in America," it is rather difficult to identify any "true (accurate) agenda."

Second, IMO, 'ksagnostic' provided a post that was very insightful and helpful. It leads one to view the Christian Right as an onion...with many layers containing many different components and agendas/tactical goals. The pressing question is if there is an overall, coordinated and led, strategy that could/would lead to the ultimate goals (core) you wish to identify. (It is very difficult to identify the core of an onion.)

Third, are all Christians members of the Religious Right? Of course not! Are all Republicans members of the Religious Right? Of course not! Are all Conservatives members of the Religious Right? Of course not! Does the Christian Right use the beliefs, desires and goals of other Christians, Republicans and Conservatives to advance their own religious dogma goals. Of course they do...just as those same Christians, Republicans and Conservatives use the Religious Right in an attempt to advance their own vested interest agendas. Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the American political realm...unless one takes the time and has the means to examines our Military-Industrial-Banking relationships with a fine-toothed comb and uncover how they factor into that same political realm.

Fourth, does anyone really know what manipulative role is being played by the two major religious rivals in this country...the Catholics and the Protestants. Does anyone seriously believe that the Catholic hierarchy supports every goal of the Protestant hierarchy...or vice versa? IMHO, something like the Christian Coalition is little more than a momentary marriage of convenience, not love. Do fundamentalist Baptists really love Moonies or Mormons like "true" Christian brothers? I think not! Yet they are currently allied to take back America from the immoral leadership of all left-wing, liberal, atheistic Communists and Democrats who have been attempting to silence God and Jesus in our nation and establish a one world government. (BARF)

Lastly, our democratic, pluralistic, federal republic is antithetical to a theocratic leadership. Our nation is currently too strong to be destroyed by external forces. Thus, it must become isolated from the rest of the world in order to be destroyed from within. Most of the rest of the world must be viewed as evil because it contains weaknesses of resolve and threats to the supremacy of Christianity. Alien people with alien beliefs and cultures. America must assert its Christian righteousness and leadership before the "Reckoning"..."and if saying that I support America's righteousness and leadership requirement gets me elected....so be it." (Double BARF)

Mark_Chid

I have absolutely no idea what your point or points may have been.

4th Generation Atheist

Um, Mark_Chid, last I saw the word "fetus" (or "foetus") was a perfectly acceptable English word, requiring no redefinition. "Unborn child" is rampant in the media because they've caved to the pro-lifers' demands concerning language use.

More generally, I thought this thread was more a brainstorm/speculation one than a debate one (at least until Layman showed up). A lack of "focus" hence doesn't bother me much.

ybnormal

Originally posted by 4th Generation Atheist:
"Unborn child" is rampant in the media because they've caved to the pro-lifers' demands concerning language use.

Maybe it's some indication to us all, just how strong and successful the xian forced pregnancy word-campaigns have been, to see someone like Mark cave in to it, after admittedly fighting against it so hard. Go figger!


Originally posted by Mark_Chid:
I have absolutely no idea what your point or points may have been.

Oh, I doubt it was that disastrous...

I rarely check profiles as they don't interest me... but since I did look at yours, let me just say that for one whose Basic Belief is "Religion is the enemy of humanity", calling a pregnant womyn a "mother" is fundyspeak at its finest. Which in turn implies that you are unwittingly participating in the xian "redefining the English language" which you claim to be against. It was that double whammy that drew me, possibly the others as well, to your conflicting statements. I'm afraid that you at least appear to have been influenced in a major way by that redefining thingy.

And I could not have been clearer that my personal view regarding abortion is quite simple... it is a personal privacy issue for womyn, and being that I am a man, it ain't none of my business. If I were the womyn's sperm donor, I would appreciate her taking my opinion into consideration before SHE makes HER decision whether or not to eventually become a "Mother"... but aside from that, I consider it a wholly private matter between HER and HER body.

I can say all that with a straight face since I had myself fixed when I was very young, very single and very principled... I opted out of something that you seem to relish in calling womyn "stupid" and "idiot", knowing full well that you will never be faced with a forced pregnancy, which you seem anxious to demand of others. Again, you appear to have been influenced in a major way by that which you detest.


Mr. Fyfe:

I do understand and respect your position and desire to keep something like abortion from taking over every other thread, which it would and does if so allowed.

That said, Corso began this Fundy Nation? thread with a what-if leader that 1) abortion would be outlawed. No exceptions.. This of course is The Prize to a Fundy Nation, and thus, of utmost importance to most everyone. More, I don't see how anything could be more important around here, than to point out when someone is openly working the fundy tool box of doublespeak in order to further denigrate the fundies' favorite enemy.

Thus I felt compelled to respond this once to Mark's complete denial of what he has been corrected several times. So, altho I do want to understand your focusing guides, I also want to understand how one is expected to challenge these tactics that do pop up out of the blue. I see these constant "corrections" by Mods and others as the greatest learning tool available here. Unless I missed something, you seem to maybe see the entire above exchange as little more than folks letting off steam.

For myself, I am quite confident that there is nothing more critical to this entire situation of a Biblical America, or Fundy Nation if one prefers, than the particular issue that was being addressed... which is "redefining the English language", always the first step in every move these folks make... which is one of the few subjects I have something to offer around here... and this can only be "corrected" when it is seen in passing, as I and others attempted to do here.

Now, being new, maybe I totally misread the thrust of your post, or maybe it was that your post came shortly after mine, but it did leave me a bit confused on the important issue of instant correction versus letting fundy doublespeak go unchallenged.

Anyway, I do have one question regarding this...

Alonzo Fyfe:
The original question presupposes that there is a level of uniformity in Christian thinking -- or even fundamentalist thinking -- that simply does not exist.

I'm assuming that you are simply trying to refocus the thread into what you see as it's original intent. Your above sentence can be read as a restatement, and nothing other than a restatement, in its entirety, thru to the period.

It can also be read as a restatement, thru and including the word "thinking", with the final -- that simply does not exist being your own added opinion.

I've reread Corso"s initial post and find nothing that resembles the implication that, uniform xian thinking simply does not exist, so I am left to figure that this is your own personal statement and belief. Is that correct?

Thanks for listening.