For example, the lack of funding for schools' sex-ed courses if they choose to teach birth control rather than just abstinence?

Or the fact that he wants to outlaw abortions (except in rape or incest, I think)?

Or the fact that doctors/pharmacistz are allowed to refuse to give you birth control (for any reason) because they don't believe it's right.

And gay marriage. The issue that's blatantly religious. Because according to the conservatives, gay marriage is an abomination to god and marriage.

In my opinion, all of these examples are breaching the separation of church and state. Just because they believe in a certain religion doesn't mean we all do.

He's so concerned with what his religion has told him is right that he is willing to overlook what may be best for someone (such as teaching them how to use birth control, not to merely avoid sex like you're some sort of robot) in favor of forcing his beliefs on us. Sounds like biggotry and a definite breach of the Separation of Church and State to me.

I don't even like the way he speaks. I don't think I've heard him give one speach that wasn't well peppered with "God" this and "Lord" that. I have nothing wrong with religion; it's a fabulous thing. But the president speaks like he is some sort of prophet put on earth to do God's work, no matter how many people's rights he has to ignore on the way.

President Bush is not a pope. If he was, I would have no problem with him expressing his idea of what everyone's morals should be. But he is not; he is the president, a term which shouldn't ever have religious or moral connotations. He is in power to protect our rights, not destroy them.

I love that quote. Of course some have said the same about TV.

quote:

---

Or the fact that doctors/pharmacistz are allowed to refuse to give you birth control (for any reason) because they don't believe it's right.

---

Well, I for one am glad that the freedom to choose if I feel it is right or wrong, safe or unsafe, to write or give anyone a prescription is still my right.

It's good that is true for the same reason that it's good that you can choose where you go to get your care, or prescriptions filled.

It is good that we still get to choose who it is that runs the country, and we can voice our approval or disapproval of that person's actions in the way the founding peoples intended. VOTE !

If you are unable to vote, talk to those who can, write to those in power and tell them how you feel. Be an informed agent of change. It is good that we can still do these things too. Never forget there are many places where these simple little things cannot be said, done, or even thought.

It's just a little depressing when someone says, "I'm against all abortion, and because our president is too, I'm voting for him. I trust him, he doesn't lie!"

------------------
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Do *I* inject my religion into my politics? Not really. But I do respect other people's choice to use their religion to influence their vote, no matter how much I may disagree with them.

Oh, and not everybody wants to change the course of events in this country. i think it's terribly presumptuous to assume we're all toeing one line here.

For the record, I believe Gummy was referring to the fact that not everyone here is a Democrat, nor do they need to be to feel this site's goal is important, or support its aims.

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

quote:

---

Originally posted by Milke:
For the record, I believe Gummy was referring to the fact that not everyone here is a Democrat, nor do they need to be to feel this site's goal is important, or support its aims.

---

No, they certainly do not.

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

Because with scenarios like that, in short order, there'd be no private effort to give because we couldn't be here or do what we do at all.

So, in a word, yes, as far as I'm concerned, though "contrary political view" isn't how I'd describe that, unless you're talking about a political view, and action to support and encourage that view in action, that's contrary to what we do and keeping us here.

Moreover, it might be worth asking yourself if it's a good idea to have someone in office unwilling to change their mind or re-evaluate their opinions. In ther words, being staid about absolutely everything, even when you suspect or have discovered you were clearly wrong, is often not the best course of action.

If you are pro-life, and wish to prevent abortions from happening, then supporting Bush is not the way to do it. Before Bush took office, the number of abortions in the US had been steadily declining, and when he took office, they were at a 24-year low. However, since Bush took office, the number of abortions has increased in the 16 states that provide multi-year data.

Why have abortions increased? Several reasons:

- 2/3 of women who abort say it is because they cannot afford a child. The economic slump makes people reluctant to have children, and this slump can be directly traced to Bush's economic policies and the war.

- Half of women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. Men who are jobless are less likely to marry. In three states where marriage numbers increased in 2002 over 2001, abortion levels fell. In all 13 states where marriage levels fell, abortion levels increased by the thousands. Increased unemployment leads to more abortions.

- Women worry about health care, for themselves and their children. 5.2 million more people are without health insurance than were without it before Bush took office. Women of childbearing age are overrepresented in that 5.2 million. Significantly, Bush has also cut funding for programs that provide health coverage for children in low-income families. Does that sound pro-life to you?

- And then there's that nightmare that is abstinence-only "education." Bush has cut funding to educational programs that teach responsible, realistic birth control and sexual health, and increased funding to those which teach only abstinence. The Bush administration also laid down new guidelines mandating that sex educators in any program receiving federal funding *must* tell people that condoms do not work. If you do not tell people how to prevent pregnancy, then abortions will increase.

So, BetterSitUp, please ask yourself: do these social and economic policies represent a truly consistent pro-life policy? No one, not even pro-choice people, wants abortions to happen. We'd all rather give women the tools and education necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Bush, however, does NOT want to give people these tools, nor does he want mechanisms in place to care for these children after they are born.

BTW, for anyone wondering, the source for most of this data is a recent article by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian ethicist and pro-life activist. It has been widely cross-posted across the net now, and anyone can find it for more info.

"I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made."
--George W. Bush, as Governor of Texas

Bush said this about a group of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights in the military as members of other religions. It bothers me that our president feels that Wicca, which is UNDENIABLY a religion for many people, is not worthy of the equality other religions get.

To clarify: Wicca has nothing to do with Satan. Witches are not evil seducers or sinful people. I think it's about time our government gets over its fear of witches and accepts that Wicca is a religion like Christianity and deserves the same rights.

If you'd like more information on Wicca, check out religioustolerance.org. That's where I found this quote.

quote:

---

You know, it's always a strange conflict to have someone post here who says they support Bush, because Bush would absolutely NOT support this site,

---

I'll just say it once and for all. I am voting for Bush because I'm not a one-issue voter. No, I'm not a ga-ga, Kool-Aid drunking, party-line toeing, theocrat zombie. I don't even think Bush is the best candidate the GOP could endorse. But he's the one who received the party nomination, and for the issues that matter most to me right now, I don't think Kerry could do a better job.

So then, how do I reconcile having more than 9000 posts on this page with my political leanings? I'm pretty socially liberal, but I prefer to do things through private means. I've got a pretty strong libertarian bend. And yeah, I do intern for a government agency. That does bother me a bit, but considering I'm not being paid means I am not a tax burden, but I am afforded a lot of research opportunities that non-profits sometimes don't have (though I wish they did -- I'd love to work in the non-profit sector).

Personally, I'd like to see this issue more or less buried to low-priority under a conservative administration. This is not where the government should be focused. Like I said, I've got libertarian tendencies, so I think government needs to get the hell out of social issues. I said earlier that I don't bring my religion into my politics. Other people do, and I recognize that fact (albeit a little begrudgingly).

Anyway, I'm expecting a lot of you to come down hard on me for this. I get crap from folks a lot. I don't want to argue with people; I might choose not to answer my critics because I am tired of defending myself over and over (I do get harassed a lot from my colleagues). I'm not a swing voter. I vote regularly, and if you don't agree with my stance, then you should vote, too

It might be easier for me to swallow that somone of intelligence would vote that way if I knew of any other issues where the Bush administration had done anything close to a decent job: if he hadn't, on top of working to destroy civil and constitutional rights, women's rights, GLBT rights, reproductive rights, a million quality of life issues for anyone below the upper middle class (while lathering benefits on the richest citizens that are unfathomable), ALSO almost singlehandedly screwed all our international relations, lied about terrorism issues to the point that thousands of soldiers and civilians here and abroad have been killed, and maimed the economy to boot. While I certainly wasn't a supporter of Reagan and the first Bush, I have to say that even they didn't do as horrid a job as this Bush, and I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say that, in comparison, they almost look competent.

In other words, the only person I can see voting for Bush would BE a one issue voter, because the big picture is far more terrifying and speaks far more loudly than Bush and his cronies on just one issue. So, I just can't make sense of it otherwise: I heard people supporting Bush because of what the Taliban did while turning away from the fact that he FINANCED them grossly with our tax dollars, that sort of thing. I just can't make sense of it.

And per Scarleteen and other organizations like it, there's really just nothing to say in terms of the paradox suppoting that man and his buddies creates. Because I think it's great to support things privately, but it's awfully hard to do that when they're no longer there because a person or party you've supported has eventually made it impossible for that organization to exist.

Ugh. Too depressing this early in the morning, this stuff (and I need to go do a bunch of work to try and save our much-needed and used GLBT youth center that's about to sink, yet again, mainly due to this administration and in spite of massive public efforts fror it).

I know this comes off as harsh, but I don't feel right leaving it unaddressed when it's been put on the table. However, it makes me so soulsick that it's very difficult for me to know how to respond.

It is our responsibility to make an informed decision based on our understanding of the issues, and our belief that our chosen candidate represents our views on said issues. I do believe you are well informed, and I trust that your choice is based on information that you consider valid and reliable.

Happily we have the choice to vote for whomever we choose, irrespective of party lines, religious affiliation, race, or gender. The burden of responsibility falls squarely on our shoulders to be well informed, and try to remain free from bias that might creep in from the popular media or other unreliable sources.

I do not recall being told when I filled in the little box on my voter card so many years ago that in doing so I understood in order to be a good democrat I must always vote a straight ticket, even if my party chose poorly for a candidate in any office. (I didn’t miss any fine print did I?)

Voting for a democrat or republican or "other" candidate means nothing more to me than the fact that the individual earned my vote based on their platform as I understand it, and my confidence in their ability to represent me and my beliefs where it counts.

I can't vote -- in any country, and depending on the choices I make, may never be able to again. But I believe, and always have, that regardless of my personal feelings, it would never be appropriate for me to tell someone else how to represent themself. While I have volunteered for a political party I care about, and not liked the choices other people made, it was never my place to tell them they disgusted me, nor refuse to associate with them because of those choices.

I chose to marry someone with political beliefs very different from what mine were at the time. Living in a different country from the one I'd grown up in, and being around people like my husband and Gummy has altered my beliefs in some ways, though I was always allowed to feel how I wanted to. I was at no time expected to agree, and was encouraged to come to beliefs through my own means. Because I know that different people live in different situations, and have different priorities, I'm now a lot less likely to judge someone on their politics. However, on occasions when I am confronted by someone who makes it clear that they have no tolerance for diverse beliefs, or anything but contempt for those who feel differently from them, I find it hard to know what to say.

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

I'm offended because my personal rights and liberties are at risk here. Call me a one-issue voter if you want, but ultimately, this "one" issue is a very big, and very personal one for me. And, because of that, supporting a canidate such as Bush, and thereby supporting his policies and ideals, is essentially telling me that you're supportive of a curtailment in GLBT, Women's and Reproductive rights, all of which I support and hold very near and dear to my heart.

It may not seem right to you, but I do take offense to people who are avid supporters of Bush because of how is presidency has and more than likely will affect me any my rights as a queer person. I take offense to those who choose a canidate that is vocally supportive of limiting my choice, almost irreversibly, in regards to whom I can and cannot marry. I'm bothered when someone is supportive of a canidate who is completely and vocally against choice in all forms, whether it be in regards to reproductive rights, access to information, and the imposition of a strict set of fundamentalist-based morals in a country that was founded upon the principal of religious freedom and tolerance. I'm offended when people admit their choice for a canidate who, after all these years and all the work that we've accomplished, has a close advisor who is still refering to HIV/AIDS as the "gay plague."

It may all boil down to who I am and how I was raised. My family has always been a few paychecks from being homeless, and I've seen how much my family suffered here in Michigan alone under the GOP party-line toeing Govenor Engler from 1990 to 2002; I've seen what privatizaion has done. I have very dear friends to me who have serious health problems and no insurance because the private company for which we work doesn't offer benefits to it's employees.

And I've seen the past four years where the rich have just gotten richer under Bush's revised version of Reganomics and the trickle-down effect while the middle and lower classes are punished simply for being of that class. I've seen our country go to war, a tool which which I am only supportive under circumstances of absolute need, with false pretenses.

I've seen far too much that I do not agree with and which is not supportive of condusive of my own rights, and it certaintly does offend me. And, yes, I take these things personally, simply because they are personal..

All of this may seem overly-harsh and close-minded, but for me, the fact of the matter is quite simple: For those who are supportive of a canidate who wishes to limit my own personal rights have no reason to expect me to be supportive or less-than offended by their political choices.

------------------
Tim, as in "Donate"
Scarleteen Advocate

"Each has his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known only to him by his heart, and his friends can only read the title." -- Virginia Woolf.

I feel the exact same way about people supporting Bush that I do about people supporting China's continued forced occupation of Tibet, about people supporting aspects of racism, sexism or homophobia, about support of people like Hitler and Mussolini, about someone buying from companies which harm their workers, et cetera. And some of these things are isues we call into question even right here at these boards all the time.

Being anti-choice would be me saying "I don't want you to have the right to choose," not "I am dissapointed in and confused by the choices you are making," and I feel very strongly it is any person's place to express that and question it, and per this situation in this particular venue and on this issue, it is most certainly mine.

I know my own choices in many regards, on many different issues, have been questioned by people close to me, even by people unknown to me quite publicly, and I certainly hope no one ever stops questioning me in that regard because I find it terribly important that they do so, and that all of us question things, especially when our interest in such is far more than simply personal and in the common interest of keeping important things we value around.

This morning, I had a few moments of "What if the shoes were on other feet?" that I thought I might share, just as food for thought.

What if one of our presidential candidates was:
- Banning heterosexual marriage and the rights afforded to those who marry and had made statements that heterosexual people were not equal to those of another sexual orientation? Or banning those of a certain race from marrying while allowing others of another race to do so?
- Sending numerous women or children, rather than men, off to be wounded and die in another country based on an outright lie about the dangers there, and/or in a country that wasn't Iraq, but say, Canada, where their citizens were dying in droves from our forces to "liberate" them, despite their noninterest in such?
- Taking away men's rights to reproductive choice or access to condoms?
- Taking healthcare and housing away from not the poor or the elderly, but from middle-class teens and twentysomethings?
- Placing people in offices and committees which were clearly unsuitable such as, let's say, a three-pack a day smoker into the office to regulate tobacco, or someone to a men's health committee who told men who wanted to know how to use condoms that they needed to be married to get that information?
- Outsourcing and/or removing the jobs of only the middle-to-upper class?
- Creating "faith-based" initiatives not based in Christianity, but in Islam, Wicca or Jainism?

Just for thinks. Given, some of those analogies are not perfect, because our current President is still essentially doing some of those things, but all the same, I find it helpful to put things in a different perspective sometimes like this.

A good one for me, for instance, was discovering that BOTH Kerry and Bush plan to put judges on the supreme court with a known bias (per reproductive choice), and finding out that even though I was far more comfortable with one position than the other, the known bias still didn't sit well with me, even when it would have benefitted me.

If, at this point, people are pretty evenly divided about who they're choosing to vote for (and if the stats weren't like that, only one side would still be campaigning), we either have to assume that half the country is terribly misguided, or that people have their reasons for their choices.

------------------
Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA

quote:

---

Originally posted by Milke:
If, at this point, people are pretty evenly divided about who they're choosing to vote for (and if the stats weren't like that, only one side would still be campaigning), we either have to assume that half the country is terribly misguided, or that people have their reasons for their choices.

---

And, for the most part, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. It's not the fact that anyone is saying that other's don't have the right to make that choice that is being called into question, it is the motiviations for that choice that is.

I have a bias with a lot of the issues that have been raised in this election. I can admit that, and it is in fact probably the deciding factor in my taking offense to those who are supportive of Bush. It's human nature to be biased; that is precisely why there is no true objective figure out there. It's impossible not to be affected by the situations and circumstances you've been placed in throughout your life.

I am queer. I was raised in a low-income family. I was abused in my childhood under the guise of good, Christian-based child punishment. I've had a realitive lose his life in a war over oil and imperalism. All of these things, and a myriad more, affect my political self, whether they are positive or negative is determined by perspective. And when I make my own choices, and form my own opinions in regard to whom I will and will not support politically, and also when I view the political allegance and support of others.

I'm more than willing to admit my biases, because they are Very Important and form the filter though which I view the world. I will support anyone's right to choose, no matter what choice they make, but I still have the right to question that choice, or more importantly the motiviations behind that choice. And, as has already been said, likening a specific reproductive choice, such as having an abortion which affects only a small group directly, to a political choice which as the power to affect how each and everyone in this country lives and how they can choose to live is like attempting to compare a pebble to Venus. Not to mention that it's incredibly ironic to make that analogy in reference to supporting a canidate who wants to ensure that that specific choice is no longer an issue through the systematic and legal extermination of it.

------------------
Tim, as in "Donate"
Scarleteen Advocate

It is also unsound to suggest that a given person being dissapointed or upset by a choice in expressing those feelings is holding something against a person: doing that would require other actions.

And again, comparing a personal reproductive choice with who one is supporting for a public office is just not sound: that's not the same sort of choice. If my friend Alice chooses to have a child or have an abortion, that isn't going to impact my civil rights, my ability to work, my agency to have healthcare and the like, and it's really unlikely to affect someone she doesn't know two countries over at all.

And yes: when discussing this issue much of the issue absolutely is about the Bush administration and what is and has been wrong there: that's how this thread began. If it isn't, or if it's a given that it is unacceptable and corrupt, then asking for unilateral support -- with no expression of feeling spoken and no allowance for nonsupport -- for those posting in their support of him becomes even more paradoxical.

At these boards, how many times have we expressed dissapointment about a given set of a choices a user has made, and done what we could to inform them better to make what we see as sounder choices, or ask them to consider the choices they're making? Come on, that's a huge part of what we do here. And again, even those are largely far more personal choices.

This is again, perhaps one of those "my site, my rules," moments, because by no means am I going to say it's not okay for anyone here to question or express fair feelings about politics or completely public or civil issues, on any side of the fence. I'd be more than open when I put my politics on the table to answer questions about the whys of them and to ask why someone is dissapointed when they are, etc. While in some cases some limits need be set (for instance, why it's acceptable to talk about reproductive choice issues here or any variety of reproductive choice, but it's not okay to use histrionic hyperbole because I'm not going to do something I know creates an environment of often extended harassment or shame here, and I do expect civil, sound discussion), this is a public matter. Someone doesn't want it to be one, they don't want to know what others feelings on it are or have questions asked about it, then by all means, it doesn't need be brought here.

I never assumed anyone didn't have reasons for their choices: I stated clearly I simply didn't yet understand what they could be in terms of supporting the Bush administration, especially when one also seeks to and/or does support comprehensive sex education, reproductive choice, civil rights issues like GLBT rights and the like, much in the same way that I would have trouble comprehending how someone who sought to support independent farming bought organic but built strip malls over those same farms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Milke:
But the point has never been that what Bush is doing is okay, or something that necessarily should be supported. The point is that we still deserve the right to choose, and not have those choices held against us by those who disagree.

---

Milke, if someone turned you out of your home, or walked up to you and, say, spit in your face, would you hold that choice against them? I would, if they did it to me.

Likewise, if my neighbor, Bob, decided to lynch a person just because they were black, or gay, I would hold those choices against him.

Frankly, the choices I make indicate what kind of a person I am, and the same with everyone else.

So yes, it would be quite disappointing to me if a friend of mine lynched someone else, or if they beat their wife, or did any other sort of horrible thing. It would also be disappointing to me if someone else chose to endorse those choices. And yes, I would take that choice into account, in forming my opinion of that person.

The choices we're talking about here aren't as simple as chocolate or vanilla ice cream. You can get chocolate, and I can get vanilla, and it's all ok. I won't hold it against you But anyone who makes choices which infringe upon human rights, which threaten lives and livelihoods for personal gain, then yes, that's a problem for me. And I don't think that's at all unreasonable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Here is some evidence that a substantial percentage of voters are terribly misguided, at least when it comes to certain issues:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

---

OK, I am not feeling the love right now. Everyone go to your rooms, and do not come out till you are ready to sit down and be nice.

I haven't seen anything quite so intense as "you'll go to hell if you don't," yet.

But I have seen mailings like this from the GOP, which suggest if you don't, the Bible will be banned while (gasp! shudder!) gay men holding hands and proposing marriage will be allowed: http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm

And this site -- http://www.kerrywrongforcatholics.com -- is paid for by the Republican National Committee as well.

Like I said, I can't vote and if I could, it wouldn't be Bush- but at the same time, as election draws nearer I'm seeing some panicky statements being made that aren't quite valid.

I know I've found myself doing it at home more than once lately, so while I think one can be scared and freaked out and still sane and accurate, I'm not going to be someone being too hard on people panicking right now.

Someone the other day suggested I turn on religious right stations the other day, for instance, just so I can be informed as to what is going on there better. My reponse was that I tried not to suject myself to verbal abuse, especially given some of what I grew up with, and the fact that given various aspects of myself I deal with enough still already, and often a lot of this campaign feels like pointed verbal abuse sometimes. It's pretty easy to panic when the message to some of us from Bush is very clearly and simply "I hate you," or "You need to be fixed/rehabilitated/squandered because you are wrong."

If I listen to or read the current head of my country talking about why abortion shouldn't be legal, but that at the same time, hearing him say that my sexual orientation alone makes me unacceptable to adopt, I get awfully scared and feel pretty much like walking garbage when I'm too tired to remain angry on a given night. When I see things like that Arkansas mailer, I actually do have a moment of knowing how blacks in states in the fifties and sixties may have felt -- certainly not with something as horrific and extreme as lynchings, but with the constant daily reminders and discrmination like a "whites only" sign on a water fountain.

When I hear EC or abortion being touted as terrorism by my President and know that 1) I am very vocal in my activism for the right to those things and 2) my president likes to exploit people's fear of terrorism I become nervous. When I see things like Republican groups not being held accountable in some states, including mine, for detroying voter registrations which won't give them the vote I want, I feel awfully helpless, no matter what I do actively. When I see polls from nearly every other country in the world where if they could vote, would vote RADICALLY differently than those in our country would, and data which shows people here engaging in pretty scary selective reality, I'm scared no matter WHO takes this, really.

When magazines, like The New Yorker, and newspapers who have never endorsed a candidate because their readership is their bread and butter are doing so at a great risk to their busness, it tends to make a feeling of desparation raise. Looking at polls, seeing the east and west coast firmly divided from the south smells an awful lot like civil war. I know for a fact that a given result of this election may feed a depression for me, after which I will likely have to make some choices I simply should not have to make, and making big choices in that headspace is rarely a good thing.

And of course, there are other kinds of fear than mine. The Bush campaign's biggest approach has been to barrage Americans with the idea that people everywhere else want to do us grave harm he can protect us from, even to the point of an ad which showed a pack of wolves, seemingly out there ready to get us. Now, while stuff like this doesn't sway me -- I've always been all too keenly aware of the danger WE have presented to everyone else, the harm WE have done, OUR terrorism as well as how comparatively small our safety worries are in that regard to so many other countries, as well as how much money has been put in the pockets BY this administration for the same poeple and parties we're told we're being protected from -- that does inspire very valid fear in many people, so then you get their sort of fear, my sort of fear, other people's srt of fear, all of them bouncing off of each other, etc.

I could go on, but flatly, I just wrote a pile on this elsewhere this morning, and I'm just plain tired of voicing my fears on this and so forth: it is at this point nearly all I, and most other people close to me, can think or speak about.

So, I know for myself, I'm being pretty tolerant of panic at this point, especially so close to this election. Because it is scary.

Let's take a really extreeme example so you can see where I am coming from. If someone attended a party at my house and said they were voting for the Nazi party, I'd throw them out. And I think most people would support me, as a Jew and someone who lost relatives in the Holocaust, in the right to do that. On the other hand, if they said they were voting for a mainstream party I didn't like very much but was not out to kill me I might not like the person quite as much, and maybe even would not invite them back, but it would be over the top to throw them out - that's clearly an opinion they're entitled to.

So the thing is this. We have a president who has made pretty clear that he wants many of the posters on this list to be denied equal treatment, probably to be put in jail. And what's more, he's made really clear that he is happy for anyone of them who cannot afford health insurance to die because he thinks that health cover should be restricted to the rich.

I do understand that there is a *big* difference between Bush and the Nazi party. He is not going to come out and kill people for their race or religion. It's obviously a more valid choice to go for him than some explicity racist group. But I'm not sure it's fair to say to someone who's freedom, possibly their life, is in danger from this guy to say "well I'm not only entitled to my opinion and that includes supporting someone who is trying to make life very, very hard for you, and so I'm going to express that opinion on a site you sweated blood to create."

quote:

---

Originally posted by wobblyheadedjane:
[B]Can you please find a citation where someone, anyone remotely connected to the Bush campaign or the GOP has said "If you do not vote for Bush, you will go to hell?"- because I haven't heard any such thing, and google sure didn't turn anything like that up.
[B]

---

Unfortunately, I don't have the URL, and it may not exist anymore anyway, but I remember that around the time of the last US Presidential election, I found a Christian discussion board that had a thread asking "Can you be a true Christian and vote for the Democrats?" (Most people said no).

quote:

---

Originally posted by 113533:
Whenever I run into someone who is a Bush supporter, I simply ask them, "Why". Oftentimes I hear the reply of, "Because he is a strong Christian". This is something I am really bothered by.

Anyways, I just wanted to remind everyone to get out and VOTE on Nov. 2!!! Do your part, make a difference in this country, and maybe we will see a change!

---

In response to this I say:

Isn't electing someone based on their religion almost like choosing a person based on their gender, skin color, body weight, or other ridiculous thing that has nothing to do with leadership?

I would want my leader to have a religion (don't care which one as long as it isn't evil/satanic). I wouldn't want him to bring that into politics. Unfortunately, that is impossible because it is human nature to have bring religion (beliefs) into one's decisions. Even Kerry would do it to some extent. However, Bush is still a bible-thumper and definately needs to be replaced.

If he gets re-elected, there is a strong chance that he will be *slits wrists*, our country will be back on the road to reverting to 19th century puritan America. You can also forget any modern science.

I don't get why everyone thinks Kerry doesn't make it clear exactly what his plan is, it's on his website http://www.johnkerry.com/

I also think it's fantastic that 1 out of 7 voters this year is between 18 and 21 years old. That will surely help the democratic vote.

The important thing is, I was actually eligible to vote in the election, whereas Greenguy wasn't. So opinions aside, who actually got to cast the ballot? Me! And I did. (hey youth voting bloc, where the hell were you? did y'all strand me at the polls?)

As for politics and religion, I think a lot of us need to tune in more to what *other* people are feeling because when we stay in environments of like minds. Bush took 51% of the Catholic vote (showing a significant overlap with 42% of the Latino vote). In eleven states, there were ballot measures to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And in all eleven of those states, the measures passed. Hell, even I was suprised by that one. Clearly, people do vote their faith.

Anyway, here's the new thing to watch: Supreme Court. Rehnquist is likely to vacate his post this year. So if there ever was a need for activism, this is it.

quote:

---

Anyway, here's the new thing to watch: Supreme Court. Rehnquist is likely to vacate his post this year. So if there ever was a need for activism, this is it.

---

See, this is where I just can't wrap my mind round things. I'm not trying to attack you, I just don't get it.

You're saying "I voted this guy into office. Now, I feel there's an overwhelming need for activism to prevent him from doing the thing - installing enough Supreme Court judges to repeal Roe v. Wade - that he'd made it completely clear he was bent on doing!"

If this is such an important issue for you - and if gay rights, sex education, access to birth control, etc. etc. are in any way important to you, and I'm assuming they are, since you're here - why vote for the guy in the first place? I know you've said it's not a "single-issue" deal, but what issues were so important that they outweighed all of this (including this "if there was ever a need for activism, this is it" issue)?

quote:

---

Clearly, people do vote their faith.

---

Funny, I must have missed the "judge not, love thy neighbour, sell all thou hast and give it to the poor" part of Bush's platform ...

I don't think the issue here is "faith" per se; one of my friends is a devout Quaker, and she's one of the most vocal supporters of gay marriage I know.

And hey, I'm all about what other people are feeling, even when I don't get it, or it isn't my own bag. After all, you know, let's even start by considering Scarleteen. I'm sure nothing close to a young adult. I don't have kids. I sure don't need birth control or EC for myself or my partners, unless immaculate conceptions start happening to lesbians (wow, would THAT be interesting). I'll be unlikely to ever need an abortion again.

I'm actually not in favor of gay marriage, per se: what I'm in favor of is marriage as a whole not being tied to laws, but in civil unions for everyone, and if that won't be the case, in marriage being allowable for everyone. I don't live in a city where it's likely I'll be victim of a hate crime, but regardless, if someone is assaulted due to their orientation, I want that to have as much weight as if they were for their gender or race. And I don't make minimum wage. Would that I did! I don't make 75 cents to every dollar a man makes, because I'm not even in that ballpark: but I most certainly think women who are should have equal pay. I am neither an American soldier, nor am I an Iraqi civilian, but I'm still grossly concered for both parties. I'm not likely to wind up at Guantanamo Bay, but I'm certainly concerned with the people being tortured there.

Certainly, I DO vote on some issues that are of very immediate and personal relevance to me, but for the most part, I try very hard, and always have, to think of how EVERYONE is the most beneffitted. But the assumption that I or anyone else is supporting a given candidate or voting a certain way because one isn't thinking about others is fallacious, no matter who it's applied to, unless that truly is the case.

So, I assure you, I consider quite often what other people are feeling, need or want. BUT.

There's room for inclusion from where I'm standing.

Being pro-choice means EVERYONE gets to choose whatever they wish for themselves. Asking for equal rights for EVERYONE gives EVERYONE equal rights. I don't have a problem, even, with including things like faith and prayer in government funding, even in schools but only IF that "faith" is inclusive of ALL faiths, including the lack of such, not exclusive, as it is and has been and will likely continue to be. I have plenty of room for Catholics, what have you, in the room I'm standing in, because by no means am I going to tell them who or what to pray to, what to decide for their own bodies, or that they aren't privy to the same rights I am for themselves. Heck, most of my family on both sides was and still is Irish and Roman Catholic, and for the most part, we all manage just fine.

So, when what "other people" are feeling are the profound need to afford some people right and not others, to celebrate and fund some faiths and not others, to take the choices they make for themselves and work to legally force them on me or others, especially in this country, whose constitution doesn't support those things then no, but sorry, I'm by no means going to work to make room for that.

Now, I've no doubt that there are plenty of people in the world who feel that they are voting in my best interest when they support candidates or initiavives which further these things, however, in most cases, because that also invlves them attempting to make very individual and personal choices in my stead FOR me -- like what religion I should embrace, like who I should love, like what I should do with my body, that stands truly counter to what my citizenship here is supposed to entitle me to, which is the absence of such, especially when those actions or attempted actions very truly DO endanger the rights we all should be afforded.

I have to say, early in the game, I wasn't sure about Kerry. Over time, I got to feel very good about him. And no matter what happened, when I learned that Clinton had advised Kerry to state his stance on gay marriage and unions differently just to glean votes, and he refused, that alone nearly made me weep because even WITHOUT his stating gay marriage should be federally allowed as straight marriage is, that spoke more to me about his earnestness about equal rights AND his personal ethics, regardless.

You know, I'm registered with the Green party, have been for forever. I have Democrat friends, Independent friends, Republican friends. I have friends of every possible color, nationality, age, creed, social strata and orientation. Hell, I'm almost 35 years old, and I've lived a lot of places in a lot of different scenarios. So, that may or may not be the norm, but the point is that even being around plenty of people whot think differently than I do, when it comes to inclusion, when it comes to political issues in this country which are truly supposed to be a given, I'm unlikely to budge or to compromise because I feel very strongly that those are things we ALL pay for dearly by compromising, even if we're personally unaffected, or only indirectly affected.

Now imagine this: what if we had a devout Muslim in the oval office? What if that president was so religious; and they lived, made decisions, and governed in ways strongly influenced by their religion? I'm guessing most of the American people wouldn't stand for that. They wouldn't want someone who wasn't Christian, the most popular religion in the US. The people might say, "Hey, stop forcing YOUR religion on us!"

Just because Christianity is a major religion in the US, doesn't mean that everyone is a devout Christian. Something like banning gay marriage or decreasing sex ed has a blatantly Christian reason behind it.

Ireland, Canada, England, Austrailia, et cetera. And most have national songs and so forth. Not sure for all nations what all the contexts they are used in are, but I'm not sure how important that is.

More geeky info for you on the pledge if you want it: http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

And the less reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

(Incidentially, I've never said the pledge myself. After a comincal but too-lengthy-to-be-told-here stint, my father wrote it out for me when I was a kid and let me read it, explaining why I may or may not want to say it, and let me know I didn't ever have to if I didn't want, and my teachers through schools where it was said -- though it wasn't in many -- were very respectful of that, though there have been situations -- like at a school I taught at, and at baseball games -- where not saying the pledge or singng the Star Spangled Banner was an issue. Point is, while I don't like aspects of it, and choose not to say it, I know that personally, I've hardly ever been punished for not doing so.

Anecdotally as well, I have a friend whose hearing was apparently not so hot, and could never figure out who the heck Richard Stans was and why he got the Republic. "And to the Republic, for Richard Stans...")

Might also want to watch how you're using the broad term "Christian" and the word "blatant." Plenty of Christians, even entire denominations, and most scripture very much does NOT support those things.

quote:

---

Plenty of Christians, even entire denominations, and most scripture very much does NOT support those things.

---

On that topic, there's an on-line journal entry I found very moving, where the writer explains why, as a self-defined "born-again" Christian and registered Republican, she voted for Kerry:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/serasempre/88757.html

quote:

---

My Christianity doesn't care what skin color you have, what god you worship, or who you love.

---