Help me believe this . I guess being involved and seen how this issue has been used and abused, Wallis appears to have spoken out against the people who promote life more because of their tactics , then speaking for the folks who can not speak and have no choice in who speaks for them. SoSeeing the posts here , and especially those who support this organization tooth and nail, that are pro choice with passion . This appears to be an attempt to draw those with sympathetic pro life views who are not politically involved into the democratic party without the democrats doing anything.
So are they really challenging democrats, or are democrats saying yeah we are listening , wink wink ? We already know the republicans wink wink , whats the difference ?

Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 6:52 PM

Help me believe this. I guess being involved and seen how this issue has been used and abused, Wallis appears to have spoken out against the people who promote life more because of their tactics, then speaks for them.

You're getting warm. Because many "pro-lifers" who make noise about "speaking for the unborn" have used that excuse to shout others down and shut them out. After all, there's quite a difference between being anti-abortion and truly "pro-life."

I'll believe the Democrats were truly "challenged" when we see a change in their platform.

Check back in about 20 years.

Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 8:00 PM

"That's my impression as well. I don't think the Democrats are any more sincere than the Republicans in their embrace of Christian values."

I concur. And that's the reason I believe that Christians should not be involved with just one political party. Issues yes, but party allegiance often leads to idolatry.

Posted by: ando | August 27, 2008 9:03 PM

Well, if I claim to be 'pro life', but then I give billions in tax cuts to oil corporations, create policies that implement torture, allow polluters to put chemicals into streams, rivers, and fields that will end up in the food supply and trigger cancers, then how can I honestly claim to be 'pro life'?

How anyone can claim to be 'pro life' and then give tax cuts to polluters and destroy, weaken, or fail to implement strong environmental regulations that protect ALL life is simply hypocritical to my mind.

If you care about protecting life, then you have to start with enforcing tough pollution laws and yank the corporate welfare away from oil and energy behemoths.

And that's difficult, thankless work. Like all thankless, tough work it requires a deep faith in something larger than onesself to move that very enormous, suffocating rock up the hill.

It may not look the kind of faith you're used to witnessing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require a belief in something much larger than one's self.

Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | August 27, 2008 9:20 PM

Yes, real change is in the future on Abortion for the Democrats, but it pains me to see that a few who traffic in scoring rhetorical points cant see that at least these things show signs of hope.

Want it to move faster? Then I suggest you support Universal Health Care, and end to the war, a non-aggression policy for the US Military, and stop cozying up to big oil and racist "states rights" types. Then maybe people will actually believe you are pro-life and you might get listened to. :)

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 27, 2008 10:04 PM

Add to that candidate listing one who's radically for green energy policies!

Posted by: Vesper | August 27, 2008 10:12 PM

Gordon: so with that, we will just continue on and on with an impasse. To me the people of God should show we're bigger than that. Universal Health care has proven to work in Canada, Europe & elsewhere.I recently spoke to a couple traveling in my city from Canada, and most people are happy with their services. So it's not *if* RVW is overturned we can have health care, but both/and as far as I am concerned.

All I've told you basically is, live by God's program and stop tying sanctity of life issues to policies that don't show any respect for the sanctity of life. Why is that so hard for you right-wingers to understand?

For decades, the GOP and even the Christian right walked hand-in-hand with racist separatists and their godless policies. Think that might have caused a few to see us Christians as all about oppression? I wonder!

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 27, 2008 10:37 PM

Well, Kevin Wayne,

I don't agree that those are essential "sanctity of life" issues. You define them that way but I don't. I might be wrong, but then again so might you. My point was that I am willing to compromise. For some reason, many people on the left aren't willing to compromise on anything - one must buy the whole program or none of it. I think trading universal health care for repeal of Roe v Wade would be an excellent compromise, especially since leftists are always ready to complain that we care about the baby only before it's born, and usually raise health care as one of the proofs of this thesis.

As to GOP participation in racist politics - both parties have a lot to answer for on that score. Even if I were to grant you that the GOP has adopted a racist strategy in recent years (and I don't), it is also true that the Democrats can be justly called the "party of Jim Crow".

As to the question of whether the Democrats are being "challenged" - I am glad these religious people are doing this, and my criticism is not of them. I just have real doubts about whether the Democrats are truly amenable to change. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, and I will be grateful if that happens.

FInally, I'm not sure I disagree with most of the things on your list of essentials, I just have doubts about the ability of any government to deliver on them.

Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 10:50 PM

Actually, Pelosi ducked the question by saying that the Doctors of the Church had not established when life begins.

Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 11:00 PM

Bradley said " (Side effects do not count.)"
Side effects do count for the millions subjected to their poisonous effects. Accidental killing, or killing through negligence is still a crime. When tobacco companies knew smoking caused cancer and knowingly and actively suppressed and denied the truth they knew many would die from that decision. Same with asbestos. There are a great number of corporations who have made similar decisions going back to the earliest corporations like the British East India Trading Company who hired mercenaries to subdue India They were also involved in the slave trade and opium trade. There is plenty of correspondence showing their use of violence for profit. Most slave ships expected many Africans to die , the slave trade was dependent on investors.
Jesus said "The love of money is the root of all evil". Very little evil is born out of the "expresss purpose of ending human life". That is the stuff of comic books. Most evil is rooted in greed or passion.

Many corporations have invested millions to allow dangerous practices that pollute the air, land and water with toxic materials and to suppress evidence of toxicity or illegal practices. The evidence for what I am saying is enormous and well documented. I think this constitutes a "pre_planned pollution strategy."

I look forward to your response.

Posted by: jonabark | August 28, 2008 12:15 AM

Oh, another term with racist connotations: "Big government."

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 1:38 AM

If you support McCain just because you think he'll put another anti-abortion activist judge on the Supreme Court, you've been duped again.
McCain will tell you anything to get himself elected.
In the unlikely event McCain does get into the White House, a new Congress with a clear Democratic majority would filibuster McCain's activist judge nominees until hell freezes over, once again sucking oxygen out of the American political discourse.

It looks much more likely we will end up with Obama/Biden and a Democratically controlled Congress.
If this happens we don't have to stop working to end abortion.
If we really challenge the Democrats to address the appalling rate of abortion in America, I'm convinced we will achieve far better results than the Republicans have been able to achieve under the eight calamitous Bush years.

This election is primarily about putting desperately needed competent leadership into the White House -- and not primarily about criminalizing abortion.
Try to keep that in mind folks.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 1:50 AM

Oh please, Rick, that's a long stretch, requiring a lot of dubious interpretation.

Smart politicians know how to do that quite well, especially without coming right out and saying it (especially since being openly racist was exposed as ignorant in the 1960s). Remember the anti-Harold Ford "Call me!" ad of two years ago? Innocuous on the surface, but if you understood the context ... no doubt it was racist. Blacks understand that, which is why so few vote Republican these days.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 8:53 AM

Rick,

That's your interpretation of what it means. I don't agree. That is is your belief hardly makes it a fact.

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 9:13 AM

"This election is primarily about putting desperately needed competent leadership into the White House -- and not primarily about criminalizing abortion."

Right. That's why I'll almost certainly vote for McCain.Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 6:53 AM

Gordon, your response calls into question whether you've been paying enough attention to John McCain's political career.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 9:35 AM

Scott,
I understand your passion in this issue, but let me give another perspective as a Christian. I committed my life to Christ 28 years ago, and worked as a volunteer in pro-life causes for years. I voted for Republican presidential candidates since I was old enough to vote largely over this issue. But I've got to tell you, I'm feeling pretty used these days. I'm no longer convinced that the Republicans are as interested in ending abortion as they are in leveraging evangelical causes to get elected. There has been a Republican in the White House 20 of the last 28 years. Of the 9 Supreme Court justices, 7 were appointed by Republican presidents, and still we have no movement on abortion. Heck, when Roe v. Wade was decided, 6 of the 9 judges were appointed by Republicans. McCain is not going to change that. At most, he will work for the repeal of Roe v Wade and kick the issue back to state governments. He is not looking to ban abortion, just remove the decision from the hands of the federal government. I read a report yesterday that talked about the effect of economic policy on abortion. When unemployment rates are low, when welfare and other social program spending is looser, then abortion rates go down (by a pretty good percentage). Republicans are not going to increase spending in social programs, I bet. So maybe we won't save all of the babies with a democrat in the white house (we won't with McCain either), but maybe we can save some. Churches and parachurch organizations can also work dilligently to provide services to women who feel trapped, and make it possible for them to consider choosing life for their baby. Thanks for listening.
JLH8228

Posted by: JLH8228 | August 28, 2008 9:47 AM

[I don't much like McCain, but I think he at least gets the security issues right.]

Gordon, that may be your opinion; but It doesn't make it right.
Igor

Posted by: Deryll | August 28, 2008 9:56 AM

I don't much like McCain, but I think he at least gets the security issues right.Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 9:45 AM

Gordon, Did you watch Joe Biden's speech last night?
Specifically where he called out McCain for being wrong for supporting Bush's Iraq invasion, wrong for opposing a timetable for withdrawal and wrong for his belligerent stand against diplomacy with Iran?

McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' song, 'Barbara Ann'.
Does he think war is a joke?
Does he get the security issues right?
I don't think so.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 10:08 AM

Yet you find McCain's positions on security persuasive?

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 10:21 AM

That's your interpretation of what it means. I don't agree. That is is your belief hardly makes it a fact.

Whether you -- or even I -- personally agree with it or not is beside the point. What matters is what the specific people toward which such ads were targeted got the message, and they certainly did. Pat Buchanan, in an interview published in the New Yorker in May, even admitted that when he went to work for Richard Nixon in 1966 he fully intended to polarize the nation for the sake of power; the specific strategy he laid out was designed, in part, to pit black against white.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 10:27 AM

Rick said, "Oh, another term with racist connotations: 'Big government.'"

Is that a joke?

Posted by: Bradley | August 28, 2008 10:41 AM

It is certainly true that the Democrats were once considered the party of Jim Crow, and I'm not proud of Senator Robert Byrd's background. But as the Democrats began to embrace civil rights (beginning with Hubert Humphrey's courageous stand in 1948), southern democrats began to abandon the party and magically morphed into Republicans. In fact Strom Thurmond actually ran for president in 1948 under the Dixiecrat label. Some 50 years later Senator Trent Lott opined that the country would have been a lot better off if Strom had been elected.

So, lets get our facts straight. All of the major civil rights legislation that was enacted in the 60s was initiated by Democrats. And it is no accident that the once Solid South is now solidly Republican - largely due to the advocacy by the Democrats for the rights of African Americans.

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 28, 2008 10:55 AM

Rick, that is completely absurd and borders on paranoid. Any opinion that you disagree with is part of a racist scheme?

Posted by: Bradley | August 28, 2008 11:15 AM

JLH8228,

You are exactly right about the success of previous Republican administrations in effecting change in abortion laws. I am a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third, in rank of importance. I would argue that though we have had a Republican majority in the House and the Senate for a brief period of time in the last decade, we have not had a conservative majority in either chamber of Congress in my lifetime -- and I'm 50. At least the platform of the Republican Party is pro-life -- our ideals are to protect innocent human life. We ended taxpayer financing of abortion, though Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for non-abortion related services.

While I disagree with the Democrat interpretation of the role of government and the forced redistribution of wealth through government programs, I welcome partnerships with pro-life Democrats who will work to end legalized abortions. We can respectfully disagree on government programs and devoted followers of Christ can certainly hold different views on universal healthcare -- I'm not convinced followers of Christ can support legalized abortion.

Posted by: Scott | August 28, 2008 11:19 AM

Any opinion that you disagree with is part of a racist scheme?

Not really -- as a student of history, including Southern political history, I understand what was done and how and why. The connotations still exist today, BTW.

Rick, I would add that it does a great disservice to true racial issues when you diminish them by using contrived accusations of racism as your "silver bullet" against all ideals that you cannot combat via philosophical debate.

With all due respect, Bradley, in this instance you are simply horribly uninformed as to the nature of the bease, and at this point I probably would be wasting time trying to explain it to you. As I said before, since being overtly racist became "politically incorrect" in the 1960s folks had to couch their racism in other, more acceptable ways, and the "catch phrases" I mentioned represent how it was done.

Posted by: | August 28, 2008 11:42 AM

Kevin Wayne,
The main reason that Republicans have been able to tie sanctity of life issues to policies that don't show any respect for the sanctity of life is because the alternative party, the Democrats, hasn't been willing to try to end the injustice that is abortion. Perhaps if the Democrats ended their unconditional support for abortion on demand they might actually compete for the votes of the "pro-lifers".

Posted by: Eric | August 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I would suggest that people take any comment Bradley makes about race with a grain of salt. He suggested on another thread that he thought it was completely okay for Rush Limbaugh to tell a black caller to take the bone out of his nose.

Posted by: I and I | August 28, 2008 12:14 PM

Some of what Rick says is true, but do you really believe that the phrase "big government" is a loaded racist term?

You have to consider the political culture and history of the South to understand why the phrase "big government" is considered racist. The Scots-Irish culture that informs it even today is highly individualistic and deeply resentful and suspicious of outside authority, which is the real reason 11 states seceded, prompting the Civil War. (If you go down South you won't see any monuments, streets etc. named for Abraham Lincoln.) As the federal government destroyed slavery and prompted the post-slavery "Reconstruction," Southerners grew even more resentful because the newly-freed blacks were the chief beneficiaries of authority.

Something similar happened during the civil-rights movement, whose activists went to Federal courts to get Jim Crow laws overturned because state and local authorities had zero interest in doing so, and in fact state legislatures in the South regularly used the legal strategies of "nullification" ("it doesn't apply to us") and "interposition" (state law overruling Federal law) to try to ignore rulings from the Federal bench. Then, LBJ's "Great Society" was perceived as helping African-Americans at the expense of everyone else, never mind that two-thirds of the people who were using AFDC at its inception were white.

So yes, "big government" does have a racist tinge to it.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 12:29 PM

Uh huh...

"The era of big government is over."

Just another one those closet racists trying to subtly appeal to red neck yokels down south who are still hankering for Jim Crow. yeah...

Posted by: Eric | August 28, 2008 12:46 PM

Biden's speech reminded me of why I was a Democrat in earlier days. His speech echoes of what life was like for many of us growing up in the 1960s and 70s in a working-class family, with dairy farmers for grandparents. Most of the family eked out a living from week-to-week and month-to-month. Biden gets it in a way that neither Obama or McCain can. Many Democrats have lost sight of their base, ironically because of the Clintons turning the White House into a palace in the 1990s.

Posted by: ande | August 28, 2008 12:49 PM

One does not have to go back very far to see how the Republicans have effectively exploited the race issue. Jesse Helms did it in NC against an African American opponent, and it was used to great effect to defeat Harold Ford Jr in Tennessee. George Howard Walker Bush used the face of Willie Horton to defeat Michael Dukakis and Patrick Buchanan tried to fire up the Republican crowd in 1992 with an overtly racist appeal. Richard Nixon introduced the term "silent majority" with a wink and a nod when he campaigned in the south in 1968, but everyone understood the message and that region has been solidly Republican ever since.

So please don't be surprised when the Republicans play that card this year. Their convention will no doubt showcase some African Americans but don't be taken in with their subterfuge. But I have not given up hope that they will one day be converted. If Mitt Romney's church can reverse its long-standing discrimination against African Americans, then nothing is impossible!

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 28, 2008 12:56 PM

Well David Plouff can say whatever he wants, but McCain couldn't put an anti-abortion activist judge on the Supreme Court if his own life depended on it.

Especially considering that the Democratic Party is widely expected to pick up seats in both houses of Congress.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 1:22 PM

School choice is a neoliberal sham, and it is unfortunate that we insist on faith creating separatism at the level of schooling. Simply put, the public sphere needs to become more robust and pluralistic, rather than more divided and sectarian.
School choice creates "choice" for those who can afford to choose, and erodes a healthy notion of the public for those who cannot afford to do so. Based on a system of meritocracy, it dumps those citizens who cannot "choose."

Posted by: JH | August 28, 2008 1:53 PM

And what activities do you have planned at the Republican convention, Jim?

Norris Battin

Posted by: Norris Battin | August 28, 2008 2:25 PM

Democrats have always supported programs to help families - programs like WIC, Head Start, extending Medicaid coverage to more children. It the Republicans who talk a good anti-abortion story and then go after the Democrats for their "welfare" programs. Tax credits for working families are Dem. programs. Republicans also don't favor requiring health insurance to cover birth control. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best way to stop abortions. Republicans have become the party of the wealthy and the corporations. Please, don't put the abortion issue front and center again. You would think that the anti-abortion folks would not be fooled again by Rep. talk of banning abortions.

Pro-life means ending war, feeding the hungry, helping working families keep their homes, providing good education and health care for all, working for peace and justice around the world. These are the Democratic plans!

Posted by: Karen Linn | August 28, 2008 2:55 PM

I do believe in the Democratic party, I do believe pro-life means ending war, respecting all races, all beliefs without judgement. To continue to support a warring faction because they are anti- abortion makes no sense to me. They protect the unborn, but yet they mame, starve and murder the already born??? We must begin with compassion, work for change and then we can start to come to agreements on the abortion rights issue, a private issue. Hunger in America, housing in America, health care in America, Jobs in America; these a public issues. God Bless America, we can make it right.

Posted by: ravenn' | August 28, 2008 3:09 PM

I believe that God can use a Democrat or Republican if they are saved and they love the Lord. I believe that Democrats need to embrace moral values and Republicans need to embrace social issues. Why is there a need for a divide?

Christians Democrats and Republicans have the power to pray for these candidates. The last two elections were decided based on moral issues, but the social issues fell by the wayside.

Now, we have a Democratic candidate who professes Christianity but is still on the hinges on some issues. Christians need to hear what God is saying at this hour. I agree that the prophets need to speak up and not be partisan prophets. Hear what God is saying, but if they do that, that would mean they would have to denounce many of the things they've said in the past.

I believe, Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord!, is a prophetic book. It talks about the division in the parties, God's role in politics, should Christians vote for Republicans only, does voting for a Democrat make me immoral, what issues are important to God and why we should be part of the political process in the first place.

We need to encourage all Christians to be balanced and speak up for moral issues and social issues. We need to ask God for wisdom in this election. We can't be bound by fears and partisan-prophetic messages that protect our special interests. We need to be accountable and hear God's voice, not our own.

Are you ready to start thinking for youself? Are you ready to pray and hear God for yourself? Are you ready to pray before you vote and not tie a candidate to one moral litmus test? Let's stop the hypocrisy and ask God for wisdom and guidance.

Freya S. Williams, Author
Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord!
www.praybeforeyouvote.org
freyas@hotmail.com

Posted by: Freya Williams | August 28, 2008 3:22 PM

feedback on forum posting:

I very much like the conversational tone here, and the free flow of ideas and themes and memes.

I would prefer to have an option to view and post by chronological/sequential posts or by theme/thread, where the posts to original article remain on page, aligned left in an outline layout, and discussions diverging from main/original article are by default folded/toggled closed, with only display of topic/subject line. All pretty standard on discussion boards.

It gets *very* tiresome to sift through remarks and counterpoints which are all away from the original article posted.

thanks,

Greg

Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 4:01 PM

Mr. Wallis' view on challenge to Democrats is one I agree with in general.

In specifics, I think we need to reform some very basic elements of operation of Congress and all federal elections - congressional representatives, senators, and executive branch.

Congress needs to establish *non*-partisan standard legislation procedures, including public notice of any legislation draft participation by anyone other than elected legislators and immediate staff (make public the corporate lobbyist "contributions" and direct corruption of laws); this to begin elimination of unethical duopoly control of Congress, which was never in Constitution.

More in another post.

Greg

Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 4:10 PM

I would prefer to have an option to view and post by chronological/sequential posts or by theme/thread, where the posts to original article remain on page, aligned left in an outline layout, and discussions diverging from main/original article are by default folded/toggled closed, with only display of topic/subject line. All pretty standard on discussion boards. Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 4:01 PM

I'll second that.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 4:53 PM

Congress needs to establish *non*-partisan standard legislation procedures, including public notice of any legislation draft participation by anyone other than elected legislators and immediate staff (make public the corporate lobbyist "contributions" and direct corruption of laws); this to begin elimination of unethical duopoly control of Congress, which was never in Constitution. Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 4:10 PM

No question we could make our democracy much more effective and transparent using modern information technology. Look forward to more details of your thinking on this.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 5:08 PM

more on specific reforms in U.S. at federal level:

consider U.S. citizen jury process in the courts -

I don't have all details nailed down, but after much thought, using the model noted above, if one substitutes U.S. voters for the jury and the "opposing" lawyers/clients as candidates for office you can see plenty of reforms that can be made now, without waiting for all details. (an earlier version of McCain and Feingold tried to at least approach the topic, against a flood of prior and subsequent resistance).

Should corporations owned by both attorneys buy meals for each jury member to "discuss" the concerns of their respective clients? While deliberations of facts and law are still in process?

We need to respect citizens enough to severely restrict the public comments on and by federal office candidates, in explicit challenge to the historic tradition of exceptions in Defamation law granted to "heat of debate" events and to "political discourse." This can be limited to specific time periods and specific print/media formats - just as is done with judge instructions to juries to end reading news for time of deliberation.

What citizen would approve defense contractors' specific contract bids if false claims are permitted te be made against competing bidders?

Immediate serious criminalization of corporate contributions to any/all elected official needs to be enacted.

Immediate enactment of requirement of live/real-time posting of all contributions to all candidates for federal offices - at least until enactment of law providing for 100% public financing and 100% public control (like citizen juries) of all federal elections.

Despite rhetorical allegations that U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valejo equates free political speech with illegality of campaign spending control, how can one logically claim that any constituency of those lacking money be able to stand a candidate and be treated equally under the law, according to the Bill of Rights as well as the 14th amendment? All Supreme Courts have understood and upheld Defamation laws as well as illegality of inciting of riots and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater (presumably in a theater *not* on fire - at least before the Bush-Cheney administration).

Greg

Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 6:08 PM

Greg,

I think public financing of political campaigns is urgently needed, along with making corporate campaign contributions illegal.
The idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech is absurd.

I also think the media should be required to provide free and equal time to all serious candidates for public office -- as part of their FCC license to broadcast over the public airwaves.

Our public servants are distracted by the need to raise money to get their messages in front of the electorate.
The media is gouging our democracy.

These measures would go a long way toward eliminating corruption in our government.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 6:42 PM

"Wanted: An anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war, pro-universal health care, rehabilitation-over-punishment, pro-midwifery/pro-woman/pro-mother candidate. Someday? Maybe? Anyone?"

I am SO with you! Here is the note I recently posted on my Facebook account:

It's time for me to get some things off my chest...

I JUST DON'T GET IT

How can people who are "pro-life care so much about the unborn in the USA and not care a rat's behind for people -- unborn and otherwise -- in other countries who we are bombing and shooting even as we speak? How can people who are "pro-life" protest passionately against Roe v. Wade and yet do nothing to support greater measures for adoption for the women who decide to give up their babies after they make the right choice? How can people who say they are "pro-life" care ONLY about the unborn in America and not about the already-born in this land who are DYING because they are in poverty...and DYING of diseases and conditions because they can't afford GOOD health insurance? How can people who are pro-life and supposedly Jesus-followers, shout "MURDERER!" at a poor and confused teenager walking toward an abortion clinic but would never think to do the same to a young man in Army fatigues going off to Iraq who knows exactly what he's doing? (Not that I think that's appropriate either! But I've never seen that happen from a Christian pro-lifer. If it did, it would at least make sense, though it would NOT be the right thing to do!)

I JUST DON'T GET IT

I don't understand how supposed Christians who are Bible-believing, standard bearers of "truth and righteousness" can spread LIES about someone who is running for President. LIES that have been PROVEN to be FALSE OVER and OVER again. For the last time people, BARACK OBAMA IS ***NOT*** A MUSLIM!!!! Never has been. Never will be. He walked down the aisle of a CHRISTIAN church when he was 26, with tears streaming down his face, knelt beneath a CROSS, and gave his life and heart over to Jesus Christ. Whether or not you agree with his policies, never ever ever spread those lies (or any others!) about this man (or anyone else!) ever again. Please. Get a life. Go campaign for McCain if you must, but please stop saying you are purveyors of Truth when you keep spreading lies. I'm serious about this -- If you have ever received one of those emails and passed it along, that means you, too. Not just the originator of the email, who should be publicly flogged...but not to the point of death. Just enough that it hurts. I AM pro-life after all!

Posted by: frenchfoodie | August 28, 2008 6:55 PM

Rev Blake has it half right. He will most likely justify his support for Obama because of his false claim that Republicans do not care for the unborn and the recent born. Since Republicans donate to charities at a much higher level then liberals/Dems, and are much more religious, they by default, support the born and unborn more. Leaving that aside, how can anyone support a politician(Obama) who has no problem allowing a child who is born alive during a botched abortion, to die with impunity. Sad, sick and scary. How can anyone support a person who has that as a core value?

God help us all, especially the unborn.
Frank

Posted by: Frank Ferritto | August 28, 2008 8:31 PM

more on specific federal U.S. reforms needed

fair wages and fair labor practices (never quite acknowledged or learned, even after technical out-lawing of slavery [note my avoidance of fallacious but traditional terminology "abolition", as the slavery simply taken a variety of forms, usually "what the market would bear" and the corporate lobbyists could pay for, to this day."]

I learned, through TV of all sources (the "reality" show "30 Days" by Morgan Spurlock, maker of documentary "Super-Size Me" - it looks like its available for free viewing on Hulu.com http://www.hulu.com/watch/5287/30-days-minimum-wage#x-0,vepisode,1), that the original language of the first Federal Minimum Wage law specifically calls for the wage to be sufficient for the worker to pay basic rent, health needs, and care for his family.

Assuming this to be true - despite specific, explicit denials and distortions of the purpose of the Min. Wage laws by U.S. conservatives, this is a case of requiring monitoring and enforcement, including criminal prosecution, rather than needing new legislation to fight through to passage.

Such enforcement of Fair Wages will go a long way to cure other social issues involved with immigration, U.S./Foreign trade balance.

If coupled with an escalating requirement upon publicly owned (listed on stock market, regulated by SEC) corporations to measurably improve public services, based on every multiple of billion dollar gross profit:
1. increases toward 100% of their employees and contracted labor receiving Fair Wages;
2. increases toward 100% of their employees and contracted labor receiving toward 100% Health coverage - dental, optical, medical;
3. increases toward 100% of their employees and contracted labor meeting national levels of parity for equal employment and job maintenance by ethnic and (dis)ability nat'l population distrib.
4. incremental reduction in possible retention of income by operating shareholders/officers based on % of profits; limited by ratio of officers' income to labors' wages (as % of profits)

Greg

Posted by: Greg | August 28, 2008 9:18 PM

"I would suggest that people take any comment Bradley makes about race with a grain of salt. He suggested on another thread that he thought it was completely okay for Rush Limbaugh to tell a black caller to take the bone out of his nose."

Posted by: I and I | August 28, 2008 12:14 PM

Come on, buddy! That is an outright lie. You know fully well that I did not in any way condone or excuse such a comment. Honestly, I had never even heard such an accusation until you mentioned it (probably because the alleged incident purportedly took place more almost forty years ago.) Who knows if it even really happened.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I would appreciate a little honesty, or at the very least, please refrain from fabricating stories about me.

Posted by: Bradley | August 28, 2008 10:38 PM

Rick cherry-picks his evidence carefully, then makes sweeping statements for which there is little foundation. Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 10:07 PM

I have to take issue with you on your sweeping statement, Gordon.
Yes, Rick is meticulous in presenting his argument.
But I've always found his positions are supported by the facts.
I haven't found anything to dispute and he's corrected me several times.
After all he's a journalist.

Whenever he talks about racism, I listen.

Posted by: justintime | August 29, 2008 12:12 AM

Thank you Wolfy, Brenna, Darcy Hoffman, Deadeye Dick, Sister Marie, Freya Williams, readeroftealeaves, Karen Linn, ravenn, others.

I am particularly interested in reading something by a Christian who has struggled personally with abortion, first hand experience.

But here, as in many other threads where this comes up, it seems that it's mainly men who wish to comment

Alu

Posted by: Robert Alu | August 29, 2008 2:33 AM

I applaud what I saw happen this week at the convention....it is about time we hear people speak about truth, vision, hope, however I am living long enough on this planet to know that actions speak louder than words. i will wait to see what happens when/if the Democrats make it. I pray they do because we need change if we are to survive as a country. We need to learn how to get along even though our opinions differ. We've lost so many allies it frightens me. We need to stop being the bully. While I am thrilled about the focus on religion during this convention, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that all is well....While I am a devoted Believer I also am an avid supporter of the separation of Church and State.

Posted by: Leslie | August 29, 2008 8:29 AM

Yes, I had to make a decision----a life or death decision. I was going through deep depression, I had three beautiful children however our eldest child had epilepsy which causes a family to expend lots of energy, emotions and struggles just trying to keep everyone healthy and safe. I had just lost a very dear friend who was like a father to me. I lost my mother when I was 6 and my father when I was in my early 20's. Then I found out I was pregnant. My husband wasn't working at the time. We had to wrestle, really wrestle over the choices before us. It was like a heart-wrenching decision. We talked long and hard with my doctor and after a long time of prayer and lots of tears I decided to have an abortion. It wasn't an easy decision to make. Even 30 years late I know it was the right decision....even after losing our child with epilepsy 5 years ago I know it was the right decision. Abortion is a hard decision to make don't let anyone fool you into thinking it is easy. I am grateful that we have it as an option and I dread, I fear what would happen if we turned the clocks back to the time when women had to go in secret to butchers who would chop them up. I was grateful that my doctor helped me, and supported my decision. My doctor never made me feel as thought I was doing something evil. I was a Christian at the time and talked a lot with God about my decision. I am still a Christian and to this day, I believe God knew my heart and God knew my fragile state. God is a forgiving God. Abortion should never be taken lightly. And it should not be used as a means of preventing a pregnancy. It is not birth control. What is even more important is the way the Church deals with this issue. How long must a woman pay for having an abortion? Some minsters make you feel as though you are never forgiven. I think the Church needs to wrestle with the way the communicate what they believe to be wrong and how they present the true Gospel....the Gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation. God has forgiven me for my frailty ---- the Church must do the same. As a country we cannot legislate morality. We must uphold the rights and freedoms for which many have shed blood.

Posted by: Leslie | August 29, 2008 9:02 AM

Since Republicans donate to charities at a much higher level then liberals/Dems, and are much more religious, they by default, support the born and unborn more.

This statement is very, very misleading. Republicans and convervatives do tend to be wealthier, but many of the "charities" -- hospital wings, colleges and their athletic departments, arts groups, right-wing think tanks -- that they donate to have nothing to do with servicing the poor but still result in a tax write-off. As for churches, it's a known fact that over 95 percent of the budget for the average church goes for salaries, benefits and upkeep of the church itself; much of the rest, if the church is evangelical, goes for foreign missions. Very little of that money will actually help the helpless.

Posted by: Rick | August 29, 2008 10:38 AM

Leslie,

Thank you for sharing.

I know that what you have written is oprofound enough to make all of us Christians sit back and 'listen'.

I hope that we do on this 'forum'.

GOD BLESS YOU!

- Alu

Posted by: Robert Alu | August 29, 2008 11:43 AM

Leslie,

Thank you for sharing. I too, made the difficult decision to have an abortion. In 1974, when I was 17, I lived in a small small town in Kansas. The star of the football team offered to take me home after my car wouldn't start at a party we were both attending. I should have know that something was wrong. I was not a member of the "in" crowd. But I was tired and too be honest, we had both been drinking. So I took him up on his offer. On the way home he took a detour, and then he raped me. Even at that age, I was ashamed and angry that I put myself in that situation. But I did, and I ended up pregnant. I could not face the people in that small narrow minded town that would have never believed that the star football player would do such a thing as rape. I could not face having the baby of that boy and I could not put my parents through it either. I look back with a heavy heart at that decision almost every day knowing it was the right decision.Today, I am very active in my Church, my faith in God's grace is stronger that it has ever been. I know in my heart that God has forgiven me and that he loves me. I pray that no other young girl would ever have to be placed in a position where she felt that abortion was her best choice. But rape and incest and other unfortunate pregnancies still happen. If you make abortion illegal you add to the suffering of these women. I still believe that every woman should have the privacy and the dignity to make this choice for themselves.

Blessings -

Darcy

Posted by: Darcy huffman | August 29, 2008 1:20 PM

Big guy,

Thanks for your kind words. But I have a question for you and many of your fellow Pro-Lifers. What should the legal punishment be for having an abortion? Would you put a women in jail for her decision?

Darcy

Posted by: Darcy Huffman | August 29, 2008 2:24 PM

Gordon-

I myself AM sure most white racists left the Democrats for the GOP. It's a matter of historical record. Look up The State's Rights Party. Where did it's candidate, Strom Thurmond go after that? Do some research.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 31, 2008 7:07 PM

Congrats to Bishop Blake on his faithful voice... speaking out when it's not popular. I'm hoping Jim Wallis is speaking out prophetically as well, though he seems to be playing the role of table-setter for being prophetic, an important role he's doing wonderfully, more than doing it himself.

Posted by: Cory Trenda | September 4, 2008 2:14 PM