S. Dakota Goes After Choice (Again)

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/06/2008 @ 1:33pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (72)

Subscribe Now

Last week, I wrote about a draconian, anti-choice initiative in Colorado that threatens to criminalize abortion, curtail stem-cell research, and deprive women of access to legal contraception. Meanwhile, in South Dakota, long the epicenter of efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, for the second time since 2006, voters are being asked to outlaw almost all abortions in the state.

This time around abortion opponents are trying to sell their ‘new and improved' initiative as 2006-abortion-ban-light but the new initiative would entail a sweeping ban on abortion that is just as thorough as the 2006 law that South Dakota voters widely rejected.

A group called Vote Yes for Life is pushing the new version of the bill -- Measure 11 despite the fact that South Dakota is already among the most difficult states for women to access abortions. (The climate is so hostile that Planned Parenthood flies in doctors from Minnesota once a week because no South Dakota doctor is willing to perform elective abortions.) One of the Vote Yes' leaders is the Rev. Steve Hickey, who has said that he believes that South Dakota has been chosen by God to challenge Roe v. Wade.

This video, produced by the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, illuminates the consequences of passing Measure 11. Not only would the statute intentionally deprive the state's women of a Constitutionally-protected right but the bill's complicated and vague language would threaten the health and well-being of women and families across South Dakota.

There are many ways you can help defeat Measure 11.

Sign the Petition
Take a stand against Measure 11 by signing the Petition for Healthy Families.

Tell a Friend
Invite a friend to join the campaign.

Contribute
National anti-abortion extremists are gearing up in South Dakota. Help local activists fight back by making a donation now.

And for those of you in South Dakota, click here to find activities in-state and be sure to vote no on Measure 11 on November 4!

Comments (72)

The TIMING of this and the Colorado initiative are interesting, no?

A dispirited Republican base, with only Glacial Gidget to brighten their souls, gets thrown some RED MEAT by South Dakota and Colorado to try and get them to the polls to dent a GOP disaster in the making.

Afterwards?...Pass or fail, the measure evaporates for another 2-4 years!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 1:45pm
Well, I was chosen by God to call Rev. Hickey an opportunist. How you like them apples?

I don't understand why anti-abortionists are not trying to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Most teenage girls don't have a governor for a mother(or parents w/wealth) who can afford to help raise the child. If you want to reduce abortions, why not start at the beginning and not at the end. The problem is the unwanted pregnancies and unfortunately, abstinence-only education is not working.

Posted by k330k at 10/06/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by k330k at 10/06/2008 @ 1:47pm

LVLIB already answered that when the topic of "abstinence only" and Bristol Palin came up...essentially it's "We don't care if it works or not. We just want to SOUND like a 'more moral country'!"

(He'll deny that...then prove it by explaining his position)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by k330k at 10/06/2008 @ 1:47pm

Amen brother. Anti-abortion, but anti-sex education/contraception makes no sense.

Here in Michigan, the GOPers are using stem cell research as a wedge issue to get evangelicals out to vote.

The game never ends.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/06/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/06/2008 @ 2:13pm

I wouldn't fret it too much on the Presidential level....McCain surrendered Michigan last week.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 2:21pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 2:21pm

Correct you are, and I couldn't be happier. Driving through the neighborhoods in my town the Obama signs are outnumbering the McCain signs about 8 to 1.

Simply pointing out the coincidences in timing for these ballot initiatives.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/06/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/06/2008 @ 2:28pm

Despite jayne's protestations, Bush only lost MI in 2004 by 150,000 votes...and McCain WON MI in the 2000 primary, well after Dubya and Rove had smeared him in SC and it looked bleak...plus, the state was considered "toss-up" just a few weeks ago....

but now McCain has "re-focused" out of Michigan?!??!??

Now polling shows PREVIOUSLY "Solid Red" states which went with Bush in 2004, aka Virginia and North Carolina are now toss-ups!

McCain will likely win NC, but if he loses VA and picks up NO "Kerry state from 2004"...he loses.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 3:25pm
You know what's truly ironic here is we've been fighting this 'pro-choice' vs. pro-life battle for over 30 years, and nothing has changed. And if you listened to the convention speeches, Barack Obama was the ONLY candidate who saw some middle ground - reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So for those of you voting solely on the abortion issue, let me just give you this thought. Since the same strategies haven't worked for the 'pro-life' struggle for 30+ years, may I suggest voting for the only candidate that sees room for compromise and that has the best chance of reducing the number of abortions performed - not by making it illegal, but by treating the cause, not the symptom.

Just one more (like you need any more!) reason to vote Obama/Biden in 2008.

Posted by DGKusel at 10/06/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by DGKusel at 10/06/2008 @ 3:31pm

It's never changed because there is majority support for atleast SOME basic abortion rights...and the GOP knows it.

If Roe were REALLY overturned and it went back to the states, and a lot of them REALLY DID ban abortion....the Dems would run the country for 30 years...and the GOP knows it.

"I'll overturn Roe and end the scourge of abortion" is a promise that's been made by GOP Prez candidates since Reagan....and every time the "pro-lifers" ask "Why didn't he do it?" they get fed excuses.

The real reason is cynical and many of the GOP AND even the "pro-life" leadership know it....it would cost them elections!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 3:35pm
RED/RIO....

then why didn't the South Dakota ban of 2007 work?!??!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 4:37pm
When are the Bible thumpers going to learn to keep God out of politics? Wish they would keep their beliefs to themselves. Do not push them on other!

Free will, is our right, let us handle it on our terms NOT yours.

Posted by lvdragonlady at 10/06/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 4:53pm

ah, so you speak for ALL Christians?

what about God's people that want to keep their right to their bodies?

How many babies have you adopted out of foster care RIO? How many can we sign you up for?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2008 @ 5:09pm
God loves ..... same rights under the constitution as ..........but I'm sure you want!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 4:53pm

does that include keith ellison?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2008 @ 5:12pm
RIO, why do you hate the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2008 @ 5:21pm
Do Shivas people have the same rights as "God's" people?

what about Allahs people?

Aphrodite's people certainly would want to weigh in on this one.

What rights do Anat's people have?

I am sure RIO has a deep respect for the people that worship Xochiquetzal and Xipe. Damn! Nope, Xipe declares that we must flay our slaves. Oh, wait again... OT says thats OK. Xipe is in! Goldsmiths rejoice.

which state did The Great Wolf pick to represent his foray into Mans Law?

I think Yam probably went with Idaho.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2008 @ 5:29pm
IMHO, the pro-lifers, for the most part, aren't really interested in abortion. They are, instead, a curious admixture of people devoted to the subjugation of women, spiced by a few of those who, famously, are terribly afraid that someone, somewhere, is enjoying sex.

Posted by tnac1 at 10/06/2008 @ 6:16pm
Lots of battles in SD. Gonna take awhile.

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?entry=583203

Red River, stick to ND, okay?

Posted by coolwater at 10/06/2008 @ 6:47pm
Big card on Fight Night at the Emporium, Nov 4th, 2008...

Yam takes on Baal

Apap has a long awaited rematch against Ra

and in the Main Event

Yahweh battles The Serpent for the souls of N. Dakota

Come one come all!

( that's 6, if your counting RIO. Use the Satan hand if you need to get past 5)

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2008 @ 6:56pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 7:05pm

LVLIB, what EXACTLY is a LIE about what I said?

If we "teach abstinence only"...the children will HEAR it, as a SOUND, yes?

And you DON'T care if it actually works to prevent teen pregnancy, even though proper condom use would VASTLY decrease the possibility of both pregnancy and disease. But since THAT kind of sexual education is anathema to your religious beliefs, the efficacy is unimportant to you.

Ergo as long as we SOUND like a "more moral country" by teaching (vocally as well as textually) ...you don't care if it works or not.

BTW, hard as it may be for you to believe...most people don't see "equivalency" between sex and murder!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:19pm
"Voters rejected a more restrictive measure in 2006, but polls suggested that South Dakotans would have voted yes if it had included exceptions."

So, I guess the Nation is fighting against the WILL of the PEOPLE of S. Dakota...

Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/06/2008 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

So RioPsycho, if the people of SD voted down a similar measure, any sane person would conclude thatt he backers of the current bill in SD are...

...fighting against the will of the PEOPLE of SD.

But then, I guess that explains why YOU didn't get it, huh?

Posted by Lillian at 10/06/2008 @ 10:37pm
<i>Posted by Maskdelta at 10/06/2008 @ 8:19pm</i>

I think the conflict is a little bit more substantive than that (even though I tend to think Liberty's wrong on sex education). There are really two claims made. The first is that imperfection of results doesn't mean a policy is bad (this is where the murder and theft examples come into play). I think these are disanalogous, though, because the results of banning murder are still better than not banning it, as contrasted with the claim that abstinence-only sex ed leads to WORSE results.

The second, and I think insufficiently acknowledged claim, really seems to go to a clash between principle and utility. Liberty's concern is that complete sex ed fails to communicate his idea that sex before marriage is wrong. But it's not just an issue of communication, which is still somewhat utilitarian. It's a sense of expressing the things that we believe to be right and those we don't. The idea is that you stand by those principles that are right even if they don't produce the best outcomes, and since Liberty contends that teaching full sex ed entails admiting that premarital sex is OK, he objects to that. Though I strongly disagree with him on the link claim, I think his position does deserve more credit than it receives.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/06/2008 @ 11:35pm
Both see the murder of countless innocent children as justifiable in their moral crusade to dominate the culture. As long as they have the "right" to commit infanticide legally, they convince themselves that their cause is good. Just like the jihadist blowing up school buses or market squares.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 7:09pm

oh, go suck on a cluster bomb, murderer.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/07/2008 @ 12:28am
I like crabwalk's perspective! Hypothesis 1: All supernatural beings and deities are created by humans to fit the needs of a particular cultural context, time, and place. Hypothesis 2: All supernatural beings and deities are created by humans to fit the needs of a particular cultural context, time, and place...except one (God), who is literally real. The vast majority of people are more comfortable with Hypothesis 2 and see no problem with ridiculing the remaining 99% of supernatural beings as silly, primitive superstition.

Posted by Be Good at 10/07/2008 @ 01:14am
You know, I was trying to explain Lying Larry to my pastor, a wonderful old Monsignor with some 50 years experience as a true Christian and priest.

He was having a hard time grasping what kind of person could be a whacked out, psycho, nutjob, perverting the word, claiming Jesus didn't teach love and peace...and yet still claim to be, not only a Christian, but a preacher.

Then I showed him Loony Larry's posts here, and a few others, like where Larry was advocating dropping a few nukes on the Chinese...

...now Monsignor gets it.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:27am
Hey RioFreakshow, The only one not 'getting it', would appear to be you...and your nutjob friends in SD.

The public in SD voted DOWN the measure. Apparently, you are incable of unserstanding that simple fact. Like the wingnuts in SD, you just decided to ignore the public will...'if only we made our restrictive law, a wee bit less restrictive, then they'll pass it.'

The will of the poeple already spoke...only you and the rest of the wingnuts didn't like what you heard. So the wingnuts in SD accepted 3/4 of $million from a 'secret donor' from outside the state to bring the subject up...yet again.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:39am
And we haven't even BEGUN to discuss the fact that the majority DOESN'T get to pass laws that violate the rights of American women. The court has issued their ruling already...exactly as the Founding Fathers gave them the power to do. See, you freakshow whackjobs can piss and moan all you like about how 'the majority' isn't getting their way, but the reality is that the Constitution of the United States was specifically crafted to make sure you nutjobs CAN'T take away our rights...even if, after trying over and over and over, you finally con a 'majority' into agreeing with you.

It's a done deal RioPsycho. If you don't like the way the government in America works...

...move.

I hear they are trying to craft religously controlled goverments in the middle east. Maybe you should check it out. Sounds right up your alley. (Although their 'god' might insist your women-folk dress a bit differntly.)

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:50am
You know, I'm suddenly reminded why I placed RedRiver on ignore when he called himself Rio.

He's a total jackass, completely incapable of carrying on a rational, 'reality-based' conversation.

I wonder, back to the ignore bin with him?

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:59am
<i>The court has issued their ruling already...exactly as the Founding Fathers gave them the power to do. See, you freakshow whackjobs can piss and moan all you like about how 'the majority' isn't getting their way, but the reality is that the Constitution of the United States was specifically crafted to make sure you nutjobs CAN'T take away our rights...even if, after trying over and over and over, you finally con a 'majority' into agreeing with you.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:50am </i>

Too many issues here to cover in one post, but two questions:

1) Precisely what is the standard for which rights majorities can and cannot limit, and who defines what that standard is (and, correlatively, what the proper balance between majority power and minority freedom is)?

2) Related to (1), how little trust are you willing to place in the judgment of majorities? How much power are you willing to give to an undemocratic (and rightly so) institution to override legitimate democratic processes?

It isn't as simple as you paint it; not only should the right of majorities to govern be taken into consideration here rather than being casually swept aside, but I wonder exactly how much the system your premises seem to suggest can properly be called democratic. Judicial review is a valuable function of democraacy, but only insofar as it is kept within clear boundaries that have actually been ratified into law through democratic processes (i.e. the Constitution and its Amendments). That's what it was designed for, that's what people consented to, and that's the only solution that properly respects democratic processes.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/07/2008 @ 02:27am
Posted by Thrawn at 10/06/2008 @ 11:35pm

THRAWN

1. Again, having sex is NOT like murdering somebody. Only an extremist morality would equate the two.

2. If the PARENTS teach a teenager not to have sex before marriage, it will matter more than the presentation of the basic facts of contraception and STD prevention. But if the teen CHOOSES to ignore that morality, the contraception information prevents a pregnancy or the spread of a disease...which just "Simply saying no" ALONE does not.

So the choice faced is....1. the presentation of the information AND a plea to put off sexuality for a later date, and studies show that that DOES reduce pregnancy and disease. or 2. the NON-presentation of the information and a plea to put off sexuality for a later date, which studies show...fails to prevent pregnancy or disease.

and in the Palins we have a striking example of #2.

BTW, wouldn't it be interesting to learn that Barbara and Jenna Bush were on contraception and sexually active before marriage and LVLIB can tell us why George and Laura were WORSE parents than Todd and Sarah who allowed their daughter to become a mother at 17?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 07:14am
I don't understand how this comes across as a left-right issue. I mean, the left is caricqtured as crusading for the right to life of everyone from Timothy McVeigh to the snail darter and the right is accused of wanting to disadvantage or even get rid of the people they dont like, so we see all the Nazi accusations (who but a Nazi could be against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"?). So why shouldn't the Left be the ones holding the candelight vigils for all the 40 million aborted kids and the Right be the ones building abortion clinics to reduce the population of "undesirables" and control the crime rate ("Freakonomics")?

Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 09:34am
1) The courts rule on that standard, which is defined by the Constitution.

2) My 'trust' is irrelevant. How much do YOU trust ANY part of our government?

And actually it IS that simple...and highlights exactly what is at stake in this election. Judicial review has been both good and bad. It gave us Dred Scott...but also swept aside unjust laws against inter-racial marriage.

In my opinion, too many people give WAY too much power to the notion of 'majority rules'. At one time, the 'majority' thought people of color were less than uqual, less than human...even codifying into law the precise 'fraction of a person' that they were to be considered. It is the courts, under the power of judicial review, who have the obligation (an obligation no less 'sacred' than the other branches of government) to insure the majority doesn't trample individual rights.

Tell me, why do you think the Founding Fathers felt the need to go back and specifically write out the first ten ammendments...the Bill of Rights?

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 10:23am
1I think we have more that unites us than divides.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 02:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

.

Every Sunday, I hear Monsignor emphasize our union with God, with His Son, and with one another in the body of His church.

Virtually every day, I read your words emphasizing your own ego-based, judgement, your hatered of all things 'liberal' or 'leftist', and your utter contempt for anyone who expresses disagreement with you.

You and Monsignor have nothing in common.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 10:28am
Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 09:34am

Mistral, you don't REALLY think the Republican leadership REALLY wants to overturn Roe, do you?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 10:49am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 10:49am

More of LL's "mote-in-the-other-guy's-eye removal" lecture series....available soon on DVD!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 11:14am
Perhaps I've missed the lack of contempt by you and others here on the left for conservatives and conservative ideals?

Perhaps I missed the posting where you agreed that conservative Christians can be both believers in Christ and active citizens in the political process as you believer liberal Christians can and should be?-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 10:49am

One key reason why I rail against Liberalism and Christians who proclaim to be liberals is the direct results of liberalism when I examine where it has been fully implemented.

It is a recognition that the natural outcome of liberalism has been to harden the hearts of people to the Lord we both profess to love and serve. ----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 11:38am

See? It's simple.....it's OKAY if he does it to you or others, but not if you do it back!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 11:48am
Mistral, you don't REALLY think the Republican leadership REALLY wants to overturn Roe, do you?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 10:49am

But why is the pro-Roe position associated with the Left (litmus tests for Supreme Curt justices) and the anti-Roe associated with the Right (litmus tests for Supreme Court justices)? I'm just wondering.

I dont know if they want to overturn Roe, but there are hints (litmus tests for Supreme Court Justices).

Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 11:55am
Hey Mistral, you're doing the Mr. Subliminal!

Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/07/2008 @ 11:57am
Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 11:55am

Republicans have appointed a majority of the USSC Justices. Roe still stands.

Maybe THAT's a hint, too?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 11:59am
But then why is the Left so zorried about the Supreme Court? I see all these opinion pieces saying, forget your doubts about [insert name of candidate] Roe is on the line in this election.

Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 12:16pm
I just don't understand the lumping of liberals into the anti-religion group. Liberal does not equal anti-Christian. It's unfortunate that there are people who believe this but it is not the case. I am Catholic, liberal and believe in Jesus Christ. Liberalism as the downfall of religion seems a bit extreme. The teachings of Christ have lived this long. I seriously doubt "liberalism" is gonna deal Christianity a major blow. I believe both conservatives and liberals have a negative impact on people's views on religion(i.e. the intolerance from both sides). If more people "walked the path" instead of just "talked the path", there wouldn't be so much fear in the world.

Posted by k330k at 10/07/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 12:16pm

Because the IS a risk and obviously for women in Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, etc. a down-side for it to get thrown back to the States.

Of course the up-side is Republicans would scramble to appear pro-choice at the next election and likely not be able to pull it off.

Again, seriously, given polling shows a majority supports SOME BASIC abortion rights...if it gets put back into the state electoral political ring, who's going to win on the issue?

And does the GOP leadership know that?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by k330k at 10/07/2008 @ 12:30pm |

It's because LVL seems to believe liberals stand against everything good. He doesn't realize that conservatives are more opposite their own religion than anyone else. Conservative Christians who glorify violence in the form of warfare. Who spend so much of their time judging and criticizing others while never wanting look at themselves for fear of what they will see, as evidenced by LVL's daily rants. I think God made specific references about not judging others on multiple occasions. Who glorify the all might dollar and the seeking of wealth even though God's message was always that earthly things attach you to this world and make it harder for you to enter into his kingdom.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:20pm
The will of the poeple already spoke...only you and the rest of the wingnuts didn't like what you heard. So the wingnuts in SD accepted 3/4 of $million from a 'secret donor' from outside the state to bring the subject up...yet again.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 01:39am

Which is certainly within their rights, isn't it? Or maybe you're one of those that believe we should have let Dred Scot decision stand?

---------------------------------------- It is the courts, under the power of judicial review, who have the obligation (an obligation no less 'sacred' than the other branches of government) to insure the majority doesn't trample individual rights.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 10:23am

You're assuming that the majority is wrong.

Posted by usc1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:20pm

I hear ya. I'll put my money on the camel and the eye of a needle any day.

Posted by k330k at 10/07/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by k330k at 10/07/2008 @ 1:30pm

Conservative Christians aren't real Christians. They put on too many airs to be real Christians. Isn't there a passage saying that the truly religious are the ones who don't feel the need to display their religion constantly that the truly religious pray quietly to themselves? I can't remember the exact phrasing sadly.

You want to know the quickest and most visible way of telling who is not a true Christian. Anyone who uses their Religion to state their superiority to someone else is not a true Christian. I see Conservative Christians do it all the time. Hell I see LVL do it all the time. God never said that Christianity makes you superior to every one else. God said to go forth and spread his word. Not go forth and judge everyone else. The way conservative Christians act is no wonder church attendance is lower than ever. I prefer liberal Christians who don't spend all their time judging everyone else. They accept everyone into the house of God and hope that their words will make an impact. They don't need to go around telling everyone else what they are doing wrong.

I think that is what Christianity is truly about. I think everyone including homosexuals should be accepted into the house of God without judgement. Anyone who spends their time telling everyone else what they are doing wrong and passing judgement on everyone else is not a true Christian. Let God judge them.

I'm sure LVL will come back with some condescending post calling me ignorant only because for all of his time on this earth he still knows little to nothing about his religion.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:43pm
Anyone who says you can't be a Christian if you are liberal, is an idiot. Christ hung out with all kinds of degenerates. Christ accepted everyone including whores. He didn't spend his time judging others like I see so many conservative "Christians" do all the time. He accepted them all and just hoped that his message would change their hearts but he never told them what they were doing wrong and that they need to change for God to love them. Or to be an acceptable human being they need to change. He told them that God loved them no matter what they were and if they wanted to feel the light of God these tenants would be good to follow. He didn't tell mary everyday that she was a whore and immoral and that her behavior made God send hurricanes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:43pm

CCC, Larry doesn't even believe half of what he SAYS he believes.

On the other thread, he tried to find SOME means of reconciling his "Islam is a religion of hate and violence" bigotry....with his Dubya/Neo-Con support for the idealism of "Iraq becoming a peaceful, friendly democracy".

Know what his theory is?

The Iraqis (97% Muslim) are going to convert to Christianity!

He can't hate Islam and fear Muslims AND think they will be our future ally....so he dreams of the Iraqis all becoming "good Christians" and resolving the paradox for him!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 3:06pm
‘…I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition--which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything…' -- Christopher Hitchens

Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/07/2008 @ 3:06pm
""GOD HATES FAGS", "THANK GOD FOR AIDS", "FAGS DIE, GOD LAUGHS", "AIDS CURES FAGS", "FAGS BURN IN HELL", "FAGS DOOM NATIONS", "GOD GAVE FAGS UP", "THANK GOD FOR 9/11" "

This is what "Conservative" or "Fundamentalist" Christianity gets you. The crazies.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 3:08pm
Those are actual signs that a Conservative Christian Preacher had his followers make for a demonstration. This man also advocates the death penalty for homosexuals.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 3:10pm

CCC....here's where they tell you Fred Phelps is a "Democrat".

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 3:17pm
And dont forget the Tshirt that some rock singer (Bono?) was seen wearing some years back: "AIDS: Kills fags dead" (parody of the insectiside RAID adverts).

Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 3:43pm

I seriously doubt that BONO would wear that.

But present your evidence and source and we'll see.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 3:57pm
lvliberty-Do you actually believe the nonsense you just wrote?Jesus said that you are not to judge and condemn others,but you ignore that and do it anyway and then try to excuse it by claiming that the Bible says that you are to judge..You never look at yourself,but only judge others and make that quite obvious.You are as far removed from God as one can get so you should forget about liberals and work on yourself.At no time do you ever point out any faults that you or your ilk have and only point the finger at others.Your actions say that your words are dishonest.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 4:34pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 4:18pm

So the Bible then contradicts itslf when it says to judge others righteously and then Jesus says not to judge others?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 4:56pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/07/2008 @ 4:18pm

Carefully read what he wrote.

It basically boiled down to a two-prong rhetorical trick-

Take a charge.....1. Deny the charge. 2. Re-word the charge to something meaning the exact same thing and say THAT is your view/opinion/etc.

Example-

"It's because LVL seems to believe liberals stand against everything good"---CCC

"I did not say liberals stand against everything good. But modern liberalism as evidenced by Europe shows that it tends to produce a society that departs from G-d. I would hardly call that a good thing."----LVLIB.

See? He denies it...then simply re-phrases what CCC says and agrees to that.

Neat, huh?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 5:01pm
Lvliberty-I noticed, though,that you were able to call the left baby killers,again and once again prove that you are not anti abortion,but just like to,pointlessly, call names and you forgot to include pro abortion people in the middle and on the right in your baby killer thing,as always.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 5:01pm

Good catch on that one by the way Mask.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 5:19pm
I put a question mark after Bono because I don't remember exaclty who it was. Maybe HonestLiberal can find the source.

Posted by Mistral at 10/07/2008 @ 5:50pm
Ccc-Luvvy is taking one sentence from the book of John out of context in order to justify his judging,.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 7:09pm
Ccc-Luvvy is taking one sentence from the book of John out of context in order to justify his judging,. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 7:09pm

While at the same time ignoring massive amounts of other passages.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 7:35pm
Ccc-If you want to judge then you must ignore the ones you don't like in favor of finding one that you can take out of context in order to judge.Of course,he isn't righteous so that one would not apply to him,anyway.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 7:40pm
Ccc-If you want to judge then you must ignore the ones you don't like in favor of finding one that you can take out of context in order to judge.Of course,he isn't righteous so that one would not apply to him,anyway. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/07/2008 @ 7:40pm

He has said to me before, and I'm paraphrasing, that his job as a pastor is to essentially go forth and tell everyone what they are doing wrong in order to defend his constant judging of others. Ignoring the fact that God said go forth and spread his word. Not go forth and judge for him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 8:24pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 5:19pm

LVLIB fairly predictable by now.

Watch for future examples.

He'll say something like "I think Muslims are dangerous and we should never allow one near our Executive powers!"....

then somebody will say "LL says he doesn't want any Muslims to be allowed to run for President!"....

then HE'll say "I did NOT say I don't want any Muslims to be allowed to run for President. I was merely saying that we should do whatever it takes to make sure that people of Islamic belief are prevented from achieving election to the Oval Office!"

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 8:28pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 8:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

Then of course, he'll claim anyone who disagrees with him hates Christians...

...and anyone who questions his gross misinterpretations of the bible or perversions of the teachings of Jesus is just ignorant.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 9:06pm

That's par for the course, of course.

It's a given that LL speaks for "true Christianity", which is of course evangelical, politically conservative Christianity. Anything other than that leads to "failed European socialism, atheism, and an influx of Muslims"....heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/07/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by usc1 at 10/07/2008 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

Which is certainly within their rights, isn't it?

.

Uh USC, you might want to sync with RioNujtso on that. Or at least read the thread before you post. See, he was ranting on about Planned Parenthood spending money on this legislation...which is certainly within their rights, isn't it? I was merely pointing out his hypocrisy in that HIS side was also financed by big money donors.

.

You're assuming that the majority is wrong.

.

Well what I actually said wasn't that I'm "assuming the majority is wrong"...

...but that the majority clearly doesn't always get it right.

So tell us USC, why do you think the Bill of Rights was written?

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 9:21pm
Uh USC, you might want to sync with RioNujtso on that. Or at least read the thread before you post. See, he was ranting on about Planned Parenthood spending money on this legislation...which is certainly within their rights, isn't it? I was merely pointing out his hypocrisy in that HIS side was also financed by big money donors.

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 9:21pm

Actually, I was responding to your comment about the measure already having been voted on...if they want to bring it up again with certain changes, they certainly are allowed to do so...which is why I posed the rhetorical Dred Scot question to you.

Posted by usc1 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:09am
So tell us USC, why do you think the Bill of Rights was written?

Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2008 @ 9:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:08am
lvLiberty1:

One key reason why I rail against Liberalism and Christians who proclaim to be liberals is the direct results of liberalism when I examine where it has been fully implemented.

I find it hard to fathom that you as a devoted Catholic would find desirable, to see a comparable outcome here as has been achieved in Europe towards the Christian faith.

I find it difficult to believe that you desire to see Catholic churches like your own one day become either vacant, or converted into restaurants, museums, Mosques, or hotels. I find it difficult to believe that you as a devoted Catholic would desire to see liberalism repeated in the US like Europe so as to see the decline to almost nil, those who have heard the gospel of Christ or have even opened a Bible. -----------------------------------------

Typical evangelical scare tactic. Look down on people who don't share your religious beliefs, talk all day long about god and then vote for a president that is trigger happy. You argue about abortion but are quick to support an administration that causes wars. If less religion means less violence then Im all for it. Japan is one of the most secular countries on the planet yet they have the lowest murder rate of any industrialized nation. Compare that to the violence in the US. A very "religious" country.

Oh by the way, Catholic countries are the most religious countries in Europe. Protestant countries are seeing atheism grow at an alarming rate. Could it be that catholics don't try to bullshit you with their religion as much as evangelicals/protestants? You Jesus freaks are nuts.

Posted by Gainsbourg69 at 10/08/2008 @ 05:51am
Not Bono but Bach!

http://www.livedaily.com/artists/bio/456.html

'Skid Row was formed in 1986 by bassist Rachel Bolan and former Bon Jovi guitarist Dave "The Snake" Sabo. The pair added guitarist Scott Hill, drummer Rob Affuso, and vocalist Sebastian Bach to the lineup by early 1987 ... Bach received harsh criticism for a T-shirt he publicly sported displaying the message: AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD.'

So this sets the record straight, Mistral, but what an irrelevancy! I'd like to get together with people and just talk over a cup of green tea instead of all this. It hard on a blog, even for a liberal on a liberal blog!

Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/08/2008 @ 09:08am
I tend to err on the side of pro-life because I believe every child has the right to live. However, I am a man, not a woman. It is unfair for me to dictate to a female what she can and cannot do to her body, just as it would be unfair for female politicians to mandate vasectomies for men for any reason. The vast majority of pro-lifers understand this, but a radical few anti-abortionists (and there is a difference between the two) have no room at their table for a difference of opinion. Regardless of how we feel, the Supreme Court and the Constitution say that abortion is not illegal, and is a matter of privacy. Government is not meant to intervene in people's private, personal affairs so long as they don't violate federal, state, or city laws, no matter if they are doing the work of God (supposedly) or for any other reason that they can muster. It would seem to me that this anti-abortion rhetoric is the result of the influence of "Christian" conservatives, who have snaked their way all through the Republican party, disguising their obvious prejudices and fear of a difference of opinion as "faith". It's the old doctrine of 'either you're with us or against us', which leaves no room for a dissenting argument. The majority of Republicans don't believe the crap the Christian right spews from it's pulpits. They allow for it in order to pander to their vote. Republicans thrive off of division. A united America is their worst nightmare. That is why divisive topics like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control are staples of their party, not uniting issues like poverty, education and healthcare. South Dakota is using an old trick and we just hope that their voters don't fall for it again, because there is just way too much at stake this time.

Posted by theliberalconservative at 10/08/2008 @ 12:40pm