Can a progressive-pro-life believer in Intelligent Design be a Democrat?

In my two big threads over the past several weeks, I was testing out some of my fundamental beliefs and seeing if they fit into the Democratic party. Please, oh please God, my goal is not to rehash the arguments--it's to ask this question--can progressive-pro-life believers in Intelligent Design be Democrats? The anger and the mockery here suggests we are not welcome in this party. Well, if we're not, you're losing a large bloc of voters who would cooperate with you on many issues such as the environment, social security, prenatal health care, and antiwar causes. Do you really want to greet us with such mean-spirited sarcasm? Or should we take our votes elsewhere?

We come out at the same place on a lot of issues. Perhaps our values are rooted in a fundamentalist mythology, but we're still there with you trying get fair wages for workers, trying to get health insurance, and trying to stop the war in Iraq. Do you want our help our not? I am perfectly willing to try a different political party if this one is simply going to mock my fundamental beliefs. Good luck making any headway in the Midwest and South if you want to reject every voter who wants progressive solutions to the pro-life issue and wants to be a good steward of the world he/she believes was created by an Intelligent Designer.

Again, I'm not going to respond to posts about the arguments pro or con the pro-life or intelligent design issue. My purpose in this thread is to assume that such people as myself are a given and whether you want us in your party.

I am not spamming. This seems to be a separate subject. And I think it is an issue which the Democratic party must come to terms with.

You just are going to have a lot of trouble in this here far-left radical community. We are Democratic UNDERGROUND.....so, don't think we're going to be terribly mainstream, but a lot of Democrats are..........

Has it gotten that bad?

Let's see:

Are you fighting against unjust war, unfair robberbaroning, racism, and homophobia? Is your 'pro-life' stance personal or are you anti roe? Do you personally believe that intelligent design may be an answer or do you believe in bombarding public school children in grades K-8 with creationism and the bible.

These would be my litmus tests. And yes there are litmus tests.

if you feel that other than this - that you basically feel the same as most other Democrats and relate more to the entire Democratic Party than you do the Republican, then yes, i would say you should be whatever you choose to be. On the other hand, I don't think you should expect the Dem party to conform to your other views that may differ from theirs.

I do think there needs to be a re-framing and 'bridging the gap' of a few issues in the Democratic Party.....

I've never felt belittled on DU for my Christian beliefs. Nor have I ever witnessed someone being belittled for the same.

Just my experience.

Read the mission statement.

But why do you come to a very liberal board to argue your very *ahem* conservative views?

that was made clear in the post.

Because that is exactly what he/she has been doing for a long time.

I wouldn't go to Free Republic and expect them to have a discussion with me about how Gay Marriage should be legal. Yet, they don't represent all Republicans or Conservatives. DU is NOT the Democratic Party...many of us are not in the party but are liberals.

Why would someone continually bang their head against a brick wall? There are plenty of other more conservative Democratic Party websites, so why come here to __________?

They take the logical step that the state shouldn't interfere in people's personal lives, which is what the Republican party traditionally stands for. So, they speak up to their party, trying to change it.

Those voters do NOT support same-sex marriage and turned out in very significant numbers in many states, driven by initiatives on those states' ballots to amend their state constitutions to oppose gay and lesbian marriages.

You are statistically incorrect and you are defending a point with incorrect information.

as is progressive pro-life in liberal circles. Minority, but there are significant numbers which want to be included as more than second-class citizens.

Poor thing!!! You are a second class citizen now!

-- freedom regarding her own body renders her a second class citizen. You have demurely ignored that point in at least two posts in this thread.

The Democratic Party platform strongly supports a woman's right to choose.

If it was your individual choice to refuse to terminate a pregnancy, why is it necessary for you to publicly defy the party platform and demand "acceptance" as a Democrat?

-- position guarantees a swift and dynamic response. That has been realized.

Might a citizen of any religious tradition and any political persuasion not acknowledge that the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman does indeed have the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy (Roe v. Wade)?

That would be the law of the land, not my personal opinion only, and not the Democratic Party's position only.

Democrats might wish that some other laws might not be on the books -- the death penalty for example --, but they don't threaten to walk out of the party in a huff.

This board doesn't foster much discussion. We don't argue points, we agree with each other as quickly as we can.

I say come on over! Vote for us, we're more interested in seeing abortions reduced ( by preventing unwanted pregnancies) that the republican party is! They know that if the ever DID overturn RvrsW, they'd lose a HUGE voting block.

"this board doesn't foster much discussion"

what this board requires is that you back up your assertions with FACTS, which mean provide links to back up your arguments. On the another thread, the OP made some duplicitous arguments for intelligent design, but was unable to provide data to back up his assertions.

Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to. However, teaching these beliefs as fact or as a legitimate scientific theory is public schools in another thing entirely. ID is a religious belief, and if people will not admit that, either they really don't understand the driving mechanism behind science, or they are being intellectually dishonest.

I partially consider myself both. I believe that abortion should only be done if the baby has no chance of surviving or the mother's life is in danger. I also believe in a "weird" mix of ID and microevolution that slightly goes beyond species. Let's just say I'm a "gray" person. I also believe that the fundamentalist version of creation does not belong in science textbooks, instead evolution should be taught with more consideration. Afterall, living in an ethnically diverse community, I have always kept in mind that there are other religions out there besides Christianity.

It's the mocking that annoys me, and I suspect many Reagan Democrats are peoplle like me who got tired of being mocked. I know that we have alienated a lot of Roman Catholics who formed the unions and put together the charities and hospitals, and who consistently stood up against the Iraq war, and who fight the death penalty, and who would vote with us on every issue except one, and now feel like second-class citizens in the party they helped build. Black America, too, is lost between its faith and its public conscience. Do we want to mock their religious convictions out of the party as well?

Bigotry and hate.

I am not a bigot, and the only person I truly hate is Bush. And Rice. And Rumsfeld. OK, so I hate. But if the Democratic party is going to equate religious convictions with bigotry and hate, why should people like me stay here? And how, if we leave, do you expect to win elections?

Here's where my power comes from: a big ass can of pepper spray. Yea, I'm a "faggot" according to fundamental convictions. My survival depends on mace, not necessarily who wins. I just want to be equal and left alone. That's my primary concern at this point where even Sponge-Bob is about to be lynched. My reply was fair.

edit: I added the gay part so it made sense

I am actually more liberal than my church as a whole in that I fully affirm gay marriage or whatever sort of legal thing would give equal rights. You'll be seeing our primates response to the issue worldwide here in a couple of days, and I'll bet you'll see some very positive things, even if you don't totally agree.

-- want to consider the examples of the far right Christian nutcases -- just to pick one genre -- and observe how blithely they piss on the U.S. Constitution generally and the Bill of Rights particularly.

Start there, and see if you can't just pick up a trace of the hatred and bigotry people are mentioning. Just try it. Just a wee try, ok?

While most of us here are Democrats, we do not represent the entire party. Period. Stop making that mistake.

Secondly, when you post here with an opinion, you are asking for everyone else's opinion about your own. If you don't want to hear our opinions, keep yours to yourself.

Third, we are just people, like you (I presume). We aren't running for any office or even a popularity contest. We're just talking to people who talk back when we need to bounce something off of someone else.

-- right to choose should cower before your threat to leave the party.

"If you nasty liberals don't accept us based on our religious views, we'll just walk right out of here and vote for that kindly Ronny Reagan."

What crap. A lot of women and some men too fought hard for those reproductive freedoms. You are constitutionally free to believe what you want but it's you doing the mocking of their sacrifice.

Do you feel there are justifiable reasons to take a life? If so then you are not "Pro-Life" just anti-abortion. True believers in Jesus Christ would never go along with the right-wing in this country. They are exact opposites. Religious beliefs are for Church and not Public. They should not be taught in school or displayed on government property. Jesus said to pray in the privacy of your closet and not on public streets like the hypocrites. Do you think Jesus was lying when he said those words? Religion is a private matter. Those that insist on making it public are not truly Christians IMHO.

you oppose abortions, and that separates you from me, then your words mean that you think I am pro-death and pro-abortion.

If you want me to agree with you, you are going to have to find different language, because THAT language is provocative.

you think better reflects your beliefs. It is idiotic for any democrat to tell another person they can't be a democrat because of their beliefs. No one knows where you belong better than you. Besides the democrats are supposed to be the big tent party.

And I get a bunch of people tearing into my fundamental beliefs, what should I do? I really think that this attitude is why we lost the last election, and why large blocs of voters don't want to identify themselves as Democrats, even though it would be in their best interests.

How did Kerry, who represented the Democratic Party turn off large blocs of voters when he said:

1. I am a practicing Catholic.
2. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
3. I believe abortion is wrong, but the State should not force a woman to have a child.

You act as if the people posting here ran the national campaign. Get a clue, we didn't.

:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=9869#9873

Both of those words I freely take as part of my identity. And my understanding of them leads me to the values I state here. You might read some of my Church's documents on abortion, the environment, creation, etc. I'm not good at links, but it's something like episcopalchurch.org.

you called yourself a fundamentalist, so I was confused.

I have been called fundamentalist, and I haven't always corrected what people have said, but it's not what I would call myself. I'm to the left of C. S. Lewis and to the right of Marcus Borg. I suspect that makes me like most Episcopalians.

What does that make you, then?

I was using the language of the accuser to make my point back to him. It's like Shylock's speech to the jury--OK, I'm a Jew, if you want to use that as a pejoritive term, but if I am a Jew as you say, do we not bleed? etc.

What fundamentalist beliefs were you talking about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3167820&mesg_id=3167890&page=

"And I get a bunch of people tearing into my fundamental beliefs, what should I do?"

it's geting pretty old...

:hi:

It's difficult being a rational human being sometimes...

They're not all that deceptive--they do tend to stress a given point, but a careful study of any essay will show them in abundance.

And what do you mean when you use the word "fundamentalist" here?

So, I use the words of my accuser--"OK, I have a fundamentalist theology. Even so my point still stands." Again, it is a common rhetorical device.

You are free to believe whatever you'd like and vote for whomever you like. But if you are asking us to deny our beliefs, you are asking too much. Wont happen.

Many of us believe the certain religious doctrines are used to spread hate and bigotry. You may not believe that, which is fine. We do. Again, don't expect us to change or temper our beliefs to make you feel comfortable.

All we ask is you don't force them on us.

and overwhelmingly rational. I know many Catholics who attend the Episcopal church precisely for these reasons.

You need to look at the whole church you are in. Are you going to reject the vast majority of Anglicans because they aren't as liberal as you are?

Liberal Episcopalians do NOT interpret the Bible literally. They also ordain Gay priests and bishops. They DO NOT believe in Creationism, but are PRO Science.

Are you an active Episcopalian? Because I grew up going to liberal Episcopalian churches are your beliefs differ greatly from those churches I attended.

I am excited about the Primate's meeting. Are you? Do you feel bound by the Lambeth resolutions? I, personally, would and do support gay ordination, but I accept that I am more liberal than the church as a world body. And I want to make sure that our communion remains stable, so I pay attention to world responses to what we do in our little American part of the church. I'd like to see your response to the Primates' meeting on this subject.

My parents were but they no longer go to church either.

stop changing the parameters of the argument. It shows a lack of rational thought. it's become very tiresome. :boring:

I'm off to bed. Hopefully you'll be back for more flagellation tomorrow. it's been fun watching you pull things out of your ass. :-)it's just too easy...

I have not gone to church in years, but NONE of the Liberal Episcopalian churches I attended growing up were for outlawing abortion.

women's issues, abortion, birth control, and tolerance. Maybe this poster lives in Africa which is why he keeps bringing up things not pertinent to the argument? or maybe we've just fallen for the bait. The game is called "Let's see how long I can talk out of my ass before they get wise to me". It really is tiresome and childish.

Belief in Deity
Trinity of the Father (God), the Son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit that comprises one God Almighty. Many believe God is incorporeal.

• Incarnations
Beliefs vary from the literal to the symbolic belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe we are all sons and daughters of God and that Christ was exemplary, but not God.

• Origin of Universe and Life
The Bible's account is symbolic. God created and controls the processes that account for the universe and life (e.g. evolution), as continually revealed by modern science.

• Why Evil?
Most do not believe that humanity inherited original sin from Adam and Eve or that Satan actually exists. Most believe that God is good and made people inherently good, but also with free will and imperfect nature, which leads some to immoral behavior.

• Salvation
Various beliefs: Some believe all will go to heaven, as God is loving and forgiving. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and no harm to others, regardless of faith. Some believe baptism is important. Some believe the concept of salvation after death is symbolic or nonexistent.

• Undeserved Suffering
Most Liberal Christians do not believe that Satan causes suffering. Some believe suffering is part of God's plan, will, or design, even if we don't immediately understand it. Some don't believe in any spiritual reasons for suffering, and most take a humanistic approach to helping those in need.

• Contemporary Issues
Most churches teach that abortion is morally wrong, but many ultimately support a woman's right to choose, usually accompanied by policies to provide counseling on alternatives. Many are accepting of homosexuality and gay rights.

and I DO reject the theology of the African Anglicans on many of the issues you mentioned -- choice, birth control, gay rights...

No, I do NOT agree with them, but with the Episcopal church in the US -- and if that church moved from supporting women's rights and gay rights (and there's more to be done there, to be sure), I would also cease to be an Episcopalian.

You're dodging around issues... perhaps you're just looking for a fight instead of the common ground you claim to seek?

either deal with it, shut up, or come to grips with reality.

:yourock:

Wearing religion in the open has become manditory in American Politics.

It isn't that the Dems have not been religious enough. It is that the Repukes have become fear mongers and utilized peoples beliefs to stir up more fear. If that is the tactic that you think the Dems should follow in then you are missing the nature of their tactics.

It's We The People. Not We The Christian People. The right would divide us and place us in camps in order to keep us in fear of each other. I can gladdly walk alongside you as long as you allow me to and defend my rights as well.

wrong.
:D

Unless you think that everyone in a party has to agree with each other about everything. I think the democratic party has far more room for differences of opinion than the other option - as far as I can tell the repubs don't have room for difference of opinion on ANYTHING.

I think it's a big tent. Most of the things I believe seem to be similar to what you believe. Perhaps not all of them, but most of them. That is also the case with the politicians in the democratic party. I don't agree with everything they do or say, but their values best represent mine. I DO believe they are the party "of the people". I try not to judge others, and I don't try to force my beliefs on anyone else. That's WHY I'm a democrat.

In a democracy, one can live their life according to their beliefs, and values, and no one forces them to live otherwise. I see that being taken away from us, which makes me appreciate the Democratic party even more. It really IS a big tent.

-- anything but. Many of us are also pro-choice, that is, we support a woman's right to choose who has control over her own body.

Bela Abzug would answer this question for you right in your face.

I would ask you why you favor the Republican Party platform plank that denies a woman control over her body?

Most Democrats feel they have already come to terms with this question, and have self-actualized accordingly. I don't believe your suggestion that we need to re-examine it or "come to terms with it" is applicable.

And the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with the Democrats' plank on this one.

I mean if you keep voting for Republican politicians, who do work against the best interests of the ordinary citizen, because you agree with their pro-life, intelligent design agenda, then I would say you are not a Democrat. If you may not believe in all Democratic stances but vote for a Democratic candidate because you believe he will be the best candidate for the majority of the reasons you stated of how you wish your government to run, then I would say yes.

I am sure there are a few Zell Miller dems out there, but you obviously wouldn't feel welcome if you start spewing your fundamentalist beliefs to the left wing of the party who believes in science and equality for women and gays.

please keep in mind that DU is no way to judge the Democratic Party. DU is a collection of people who are, to be honest, mostly on the far left, and really does not represent 'The Party' all that well. A sizable number of people here don't identify at all with the Dems, and many only marginally.

For myself, I subscribe to the Big Tent idea of the Democratic Party--all are welcome. But there are some core tenets that I don't see the Party ever giving up, and two of them a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, and the separation of church and state. Naturally most Dems believe that people are free to believe what they want when it comes to religion, but Intelligent Design seems to have an inherent problem because so many people want to force it on other people through the public institutions of our schools. That is something no Democrat can countenance, IMO. If you want to believe in ID, that's your personal privilege, but it must remain that way in order for you to be a Democrat. Just my two cents. I hope you stick around.

Its a question of whether you recognise what is appropriate for a diverse society that may not share all your beliefs and what should be kept at home.

Prolife is perfectly fine as long as you do not force your definitions on others and seek to control a woman's body. Recognise that and I don't forsee a problem.

Creationism is fine. But it doesn't belong in a science class. Raise your kids denying evolution and you simply limit their carreers.

I can gladdly stand by you and defend your rights as long as you return the favor. Mind you I will disagree with you on many things and may even argue with you. But this is just the two of us exercising our freedom of speech and belief. I can't make you change and you can't make me change. We can only hope our words reach each other.

want to be here. I'm not going to spend my life choosing to be part of a group that treats me and the people I identify with as second-class citizens.

A Republican party platform that denies choice to women over their own bodies reduces ALL women to second-class citizens.

Lay the blame where it belongs.

I have had experiences with a few close-minded folks on here, but I'm not going anywhere.

CYA.

It was just a ridiculously short answer to a lengthy serious question.
Not to be taken internally.

This is not a site that allows fundie, right wing whacko shit to be spread around.

Shall we welcome the KKK with open arms to?

Perhaps you should read the Democratic Party platform if you are confused about what DEMOCRATS stand for.

I think I understand what the party stands for

or the God-inspired party of MLK, or the social justice party of Carter. I don't think that they would mock my beliefs this way. So, is the party as it stands today, for me?

If I am not freethinking for attacking bigotry (closed-minds) or unequality (closed-minds) then so be it.

-- walked away and played his viola.

King had more urgent things to worry about, such as keeping human beings alive with dignity than your puny claims about whether a person of your fundamentalist religious views should be given unconditional welcome in a major political party.

The party pre-dates your personal objections to it by a good many years.

I think his goal is exactly to reach out to people like me and make us feel like this is our party, too. Incidentally, he's my hero--he's the best thing to happen to the party in a long time. I bet if you pressed to him to his Congregational roots, you'd find he even believes in Intelligent Design.

But so what if he does, he certainly would NOT advocate teaching it in public school SCIENCE classes as you do.

That is a wierd stereotype you have there. And I'm curious as to what he says on the issue.

-- and he isn't asking for special considerations as you are.

He leads the party and I don't believe he's going to stop for a wagonful of fundamentalist jibber-jabber.

Again, this board is NOT the democratic party. It is a good place to come and work on issues you agree with people on, I just keep my mouth shut about some things because it wouldn't really help me with anything if I were to stir up trouble.

CYA!

On the Right we have Harding, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Daddy Bush and Cowboy Junior Bush.

On the Left we have Jefferson, most of the other Founders, Nobel Lauriat Jimmy Carter, 2-term Bill Clinton, the late Paul Wellstone, and many others.

I'd pick the Democrats, by god.

You want unconditional love, then buy a dog...

You can't vote Republican and still be a democrat.

You can't come here and push the Republican Platform and be a Democrat.

Instead of you asking US, you should really be asking yourself.

Both parties are very clear on where they stand. Make a list and see which issue you agree with Dems and which with Repigsd, and then give them a rating of importance, then make a choice.

RL

The rules are pretty clear, there ARE CONDITIONS:

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, antisocial behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

I've skimmed the thread and I am having a hard time figuring out what the problem you have is. Is it some people telling you they don't want you to be a Democrat? I can't imagine this is the opinion of very many people. Just because someone disagrees strongly with some of your views or thinks they should not be part of the party platform, does not mean they think you should not be a Democrat. Anyway, I don't think I can understand what the problem is unless you explain the specifics.

Just to note, I'm in the if you call yourself a Democrat then you are one camp, since there are not any requirements for joining.

On edit: On a second read I see it that some people mocked you. I hate to say it, but a. Some people mocking you on this board is not representative of the party as a whole and b. It seems sort of thin-skinned to feel that that means you don't belong as a Democrat.

Should the Democratic party agree with an anti-choice stance? No, not at all. The real question is: can *you* feel welcomed in a party with some positions that you do not agree with 100%? Don't expect the party to change to suit your beliefs. Find a party that you can agree with for the most part, and accept that there will be issues of disagreement.

You're entitled to your opinion -- you're not entitled to insist everyone else conform to your opinion.

then you have to be willing to help the children. The problem I have with Rep. is not what they believe. It is their hypocricy that I can't stand.

I believe in intelligent design and am torn inside about the topic of abortion. My beliefs are pretty similar to other DUers otherwise so I don't feel all that out of place here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I am a red-stater (Nebraska) and, since I share both in their world and yours, you should want me on your side, explaining to them how progressive values emerge from genuine religious faith. Oh, heck, I'll do it anyway--I have been for years.

-- who opposes their platform plank on Choice represent them as a salesperson in Nebraska?

I'd send Bela Abzug if she were still with us, and in her absence, I'd send someone representative of our party's positions.

He supports gay marriage, which he knows the national party does not, and then goes on to discuss what he thinks are the more "fundamental" issues of the Republican party.

Kinda like the administration that says it is not opposed to civil unions and then promotes a constitutional AMENDMENT. WTF?!?

-- same-sex marriage in a RED state, since BLUE states already are more inclined toward gay marriage.

Get your argument straight. Giuliani's problem with RED state voters would BE his support of same-sex marriage.

He'd probably fare halfway well in most BLUE states.

That would be -- DEMOCRATIC -- states.

My question still stands.

Not if you insist we change our values. I would never negotiate the rights of other people to satisfy you. Never.

Sometimes, when left with the choice of saving either 10,000 or 100, you have to make a choice. Otherwise, welcome to obscurity.

I am not trying to make any choice. It is up to the person to decide if they believe in enough of the values of the party platform.

... but hey - go right ahead and keep working to ruin the country - just to show us how "important" you are - lol - I've long since jettisoned any expectation of reasonableness from redstaters. Keep cutting off your nose just to spite us. It doesn't actually work so well, since we're the educated ones, and live in states with large economies, but it's amusing to watch you all go thru the motions.

And if at some point, you federal-welfare-staters want to actually *improve* the country (which helps you more than it helps us) - that is to say, if at some point your own finances and future become more important to you than whether or not two people who love each other a thousand miles away get married, we'll be here for you.

Hey - ho! - Social Security must go!

redstaters - ROFL

"Can progressive-pro-life believers in Intelligent Design be Democrats?"

I believe it's becoming less and less possible. Having read your former threads and the comments by those who disagreed, there is a definite trend. And it's seems to have permeated the rank and file, or at least the one's that are more vocal. The absence of being tactful when disagreeing has hurt the party.

But you're right, the Democratic Party used to be the party that was primarily viewed as the party of the working class. I don't believe it's viewed that way anymore. It seems to be a culmination of various special interests all wanting their particular cause to be the most important.

It seems to be the definition of 'special interest' that changes with party. All they are are advocacy groups, the group might be people who profit from the oil industry or it might be nurses etc. It seems to silly to me when people use this terms to smear the other side (whichever side you are on) as I don't see any party out there that is free from this particular menace. If you think a specific group is somehow damaging the party with their advocacy/view then your problem is with them not with the party. Its not like the Democratic party can somehow control if groups exist or if they call themselves Democrats.

I do agree that people should be respectful when disagreeing, but just turn on conservative talk radio and you will find it is also, like 'special interest' groups, not a problem specific to Democrats.

A few years ago, the Democratic Party could control the special interests and cause them to tone down their rhetoric when elections rolled around so as to not scare away those more mainstream voters. Now, they don't have control over them and the party sometimes has the appearance of being run by these groups rather than the groups being massaged as part of the whole by the Party. And some of these groups are viewed as being more on the edge than what average America is used to seeing, and I think it turns them away. That's all I meant.

like those reproductive rights activists that believe that contraception is a good way to stop abortions. Even worse yet they want to keep abortion safe and legal! How could they do such a thing.

Or even worse yet, those damn evolutionists. Damn liberal bio teachers wanting to educate students in scientific methods, rather than spseudoscience. These eeeeevvil librul special interest groups sure are frustrating aren't they?

it just wants to give you more freedom and protect your rights.

The democratic stance on abortion is very inclusive. In fact any intelligent pro-lifer should support democrats on abortion. The only way to eliminate abortions while still respecting the rights of women is to reduce the need for them through education and social support.

As far as intelligent design, you can teach it to your children. Let the schools stick to the religiously neutral stuff.

There really is no reason to be a Republican if you arent extremely wealthy.

but some religions seem to be based on "saving" people from science and reason.

I'm a liberal on 90% of issues, but I'm conservative on a couple.
Specifically, I want to see decency standards upheld on TV during hours when children are viewing, and I tend to be tough on criminals from a law-and-order standpoint. While I may not agree with a few things that many Democrats favor, I have long ago decided that the Democratic party's goals favor the "overall good" far more than the negatives.

If I were pro-life (meaning believing that all abortions are wrong), I would weigh the lives potentially "saved" under the current administration against the many innocent lives lost, damaged or destroyed. Here are some hard math statistics to keep in mind:

Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by a US invasion based on what we now know were lies.

Over 1,200 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers are wounded. 2/3 of the wounded have brain injuries, because body army does not protect their heads.
Many more have lost limbs, eyes, or are psychologically traumatized.

An estimated 50,000 more abortions occurred under George W. Bush's administration than Clinton's. This seems impossible, given his pro-life stance. But the number one reason given by women who have abortions is that they couldn't afford to have a child/lose work while pregnant, etc. Poverty rates under Bush are at an all time high, and so are abortions. Democrats support programs to reduce poverty, which would also reduce abortion rates. Democrats also support access to birth control, which further reduces abortions.
Similarly, in Africa, abortion rates are way up because of the Bush policies barring funds to aid groups that provide birth control.

If you are pro-life, then you should also care about children after they are born. The Bush policies are very hurtful toward children, however. His proposed budget slashes money for many children's programs, from care for disabled children to education to childcare for poor women. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, but Bush has no plan to improve this situation. A staggering percentage of the population now can't afford any health insurance, and people are dying for lack of care. 50% of all bankruptcies in the US are now for medical reasons, since people can't pay the bills. Meanwhile, the newest Bush budget provides even more tax benefits for the wealthy, while hurting the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the nation's children. Is this a "moral" party that promotes such greed?
Democrats support good jobs, strong labor unions to protect workers' rights, consumer safety laws, good healthcare, a clean environment, and fiscal responsibility. Democrats balance budgets. Republicans used to believe in this common-sense concept, but have run budgets in the red ink for the past 40 years.


As to your Creationist beliefs, Democrats believe that everyone is free to believe any religious beliefs that that they wish. We simply don't want any one group to force its views on others. My children have been taught Creation theory in Sunday School. But I have no objection to them learning Darwin's theory of evolution in school. Or, for that matter, being exposed to beliefs of other religions, to make them well-rounded, fully-educated individuals. We would not want our children forced to be taught, say, the beliefs of the Koran as absolute truth in a public school. By the same token, we should be tolerant of other faiths and realize that our public schools have people from all over the world--Asians, Africans, etc, many of whom are Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or other faiths--or no faith at all. To insist that only Creationism or "intelligent design" be taught, while ignoring science or other religions' beliefs, is unreasonable because it would make non-Christians uncomfortable.

Finally, even if we disagree on certain fundamental principles, I would urge that both sides put extreme positions "on hold" until we remove Bush and the neocons from office. If you believe as many of us do that he is moving us toward a fascist state where none of us will have the right to speak our beliefs, then we should band together to achieve the most important goal for our country: removing this threat to Democracy. Down the road, if you wish to return to a reformed Republican Party, or an Independent Party, to pursue those goals that Democrats don't share, that will always be your perogerative. But please join with us for the short term to defeat the greatest threat to Democracy that our country has ever known.

I don't personally care if you're pro-life so long as you're not against Roe. If you want to work with democrats to reduce abortion I'm all for it.

More stats to add to why dems are the pro-life and not the 'pro-birth' party. From a GLBT angle:

* The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has shown that 30% of all suicides are gay youth. That's 1323 this year alone. That's approximately 13,000 over the last 10 years. 40% of America's 1.3 million homeless kids are GLBT.

* In Washington State, (the only state doing the study) there have been 111 GLBT victims of gang rape in the past five years alone.

Pro-GLBT is inherently pro-life.

-- no one in the Democratic Party to my knowledge is standing in the doorway of a church or temple or synagogue trying to block you from going inside.

You are free in this country to worship as you choose and we ain't tryin' to stop ya.

No one here is putting you on a guilt trip for your beliefs until you begin scolding Democrats that we need you to save the demographic victory for our side. That's not persuasive and perhaps it would be good for you to pursue whatever belief you personally choose, only quietly, at any number of those churches and temples and synagogues above-mentioned that are, as I mentioned, unblocked and free to enter.

Faith is, IMHO, an integral part of our political life, and that's why I keep bringing this up. I think the Democratic party should have someplace for people who are up front about their faith. They should be put on TV shows and magazine covers so that we know they're there.

You want to FORCE the Democrats to one-up the Republican Lite by posturing their religion and literally wear it on their sleeves.

WWJD? Pose for Time in a Brooks Brothers suit?

Yes, some Democrats should be allowed to claim faith as the basis for their political philosophy

What are you talking about? And again, you poor poor religious people.

They don't allowed churches to be be built, Bibles to be sold, or Religious quoting anymore. :eyes:

I'm outa here...

And the poster can leave whatever he/she wants. I'm not going to debate whether all should be treated equally anymore. CYA

believe in separation of Church and State.

What's your take on that?

Again, I'd look at Jim Wallis' book for what I think is a brilliant approach

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.... except mebbe to Forrest Forrest Gump....

Consider the source - you give them FAR too much credit, calling them "tricky" - lol

in the other thread, and now you are saying you believe in seperation of church and state?

not me. Anyway, I don't want to rehash that whole debate. Oddly, even after reading everybody's posts, I still think I'm right. As I'm sure everyone who posted does, too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We don't support his ANTI-CHOICE position nor do we agree with him that ID should be taught in public SCIENCE courses. I wonder if he believes Gays are sinners that will burn in hell? Ya think?

We are so unwelcoming.

on almost every other Christian belief than the current GOP. Like on just about everything Jesus actually taught.

Beware of those divisive issues that are far from the core of Christian teaching.

I hope you've had a chance to hear him speak on the various talk shows--he's great. And instead of me trying to repeat what he says, it would be worthwhile to look at his book. It is a wonderful way of bridging faith and liberal politics.

-- of the Democratic Party, per se.

Your original post does not suggest that was your intent in this thread.

You are constitutionally protected to believe in Intelligent Design, although your logic in this thread would suggest that the theory is under considerable strain.

DU happens to be on the left side of the Democratic Party. In my years here, since 2001, I've found that the majority of Democrats here are pretty hardcore lefties. I'm more middle to left, as Democrat.

Pro life, intelligent design folks are welcome in the Democratic Party. It's a big party.. and it's all inclusive. Just because some posters on a board called Democratic Underground do not seem accepting of your idealogy, does not mean the Party is not. If you can make that distinction, you'll see that you can be right at home as a Democrat, even if you are not always comfortable posting here. Remember.. we are not the Democratic Party, we're just a website.

I only survived the election because of this board. We agree on most things--but it's not a place I feel comfortable talking about my foundational values--and I think it could be, and maybe should be. Democrats should accept each other.

There are probably more people here like you then you think. They just avoid discussing touchy subjects like abortion because they don't want to experience the wrath of other posters. Many posters here think anti-abortion people want to punish people for having sex or they like to control woman. I believe this is only true of some anti-abortion people. I understand why alot of people here seem allergic to religion. I didn't go to church growing up. My father made fun of people who went to church. I got the impression that they were all hypocrites and republicans from overhearing my dad talk. He was very political. He is who inspired my interest in politics. Sometimes, I wish I did belong to a church. I was baptised Episcopalion. I think the religion bashing comes from not wanting to have anything in common with people you hate. But, progressive Christians are different. Progressive Christians actually care about what Jesus taught. Right wing Christians pay more attention to the old Testament. It is possible that DU could change but it will happen slowly. I have to get off the computer.

Unfortunately, so many Christians have given good Christians a bad name of late... You're probably dealing with the backlash on that. It's not fair, but it's human nature. I have a huge problem with people trying to shove their religion into my daily life, thru politics and government. But.. I don't have blanket hostility for religious people.. some people I'm close to are born-agains. I think they're deluded, but I don't hate them for it.

I worked for an Episcopal home for abused and neglected children in California. In the development department, I had tons of contact with the Episcopal clergy. Absolutely cool and charming people.. and not stuffy, as one would expect. I remember my boss at the time, while we were at an Epsicopal conference in L.A., telling a story to a group of Episcopal clergy (heavy duty players in the church). She told them how she embarrased herself explaining to someone in the lobby that she was not attending the conference as a participant, but was instead.. an EXHIBITIONIST! Well.. the clergy gathered around her about fell over laughing. I was impressed that they could get over themselves and have a good laugh about her racy story.

I don't really see the problem.

The democrats consistently promote legislation that supports people's health and well-being. And I don't know of any cases where they've tried to prevent people from practicing their own religion (assuming they aren't forcing their religious beliefs on unwilling participants).

So why is this even a question?

So sorry.

If you expect to find nothing but "me too's" when you suggest endorsement of your religious dogma by the Democratic party or democrats of any party, you will be disappointed. If you require agreement with your religious views when you present them to this group as a condition for your participation, then you don't understand democracy or political parties. If you are making the claim that the democratic party doesn't want or allow people with the greatest range of religious views, even yours, then you are completely unfamiliar with the reality of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps you are genuinely unaware of the facts and are just repeating something you heard someone say about the party, maybe on the radio.

For your information, unlike the core of the Cons and their party, democrats in general and the Democratic Party in particular do not demand that certain religious views are either required or forbidden as a condition for participation.

personally I think you'd be a better fit with the
party who values talk over action, appearances over
substance.

This my-way-or-the-highway routine is quite juvenile.

The choice is up to you and if you need the warm and
fuzzy, red carptet treatment to do what you know in your
heart is the right thing then your faith is really just a
badge you want to wear and be patted on the back for it.

-- and make it snappy.

Cheers!

Did you see his/her other thread? :eyes:

Democrats do NOT support outlawing abortion, nor do they support teaching religious beliefs in public schools, but we are making him feel unwelcome because we stand by these Democratic values: Equal Rights for women (including her Right to privacy) and Seperation of Church and State.

and refrained from posting but this martyrdom really
is way over the top. It has been my experience that
only those whose faith is weak demand strict allegiance
with every edict.

Jimmy Carter and MLK would blush to see their names
mentioned in an argument that says you must pay lip
service to doctrine you may or may not believe in
in order to prevent someone from cutting off their
nose and yours to spite your face.

big tent party and all that rot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And you're just playing games at this point. Do you have a question about evolution? You're talking to a paleontologist RIGHT NOW. If you think I'm being short or disengenuous, so be it, but suffice it to say, I know MORE about evolution (and probably science) than you do, and if you have a question concerning either, now would be a great time to ask.

I'm all ears.

just what you said, a lack of understanding of what science is. What happens when people don't understand science is they think that saying something is not science is saying it is not true or can't be true. Really what is being said, is there is no way to disprove what you are saying based on predictions from your theory, so it is not science but belief. And of course people are free to believe whatever they want, it just can't be taught as science.

As a disclosure, I am an evolutionary geneticist studying speciation (Grad student still). I was very amused to find a post where someone claimed not only that what I study does not exist, but that I don't exist.

I'm a sushi-lover myself hehehe. I've noticed no responses from the OP concerning the nature of science or evolution.

That doesn't mean that you will have an easy time sharing your views with other Democrats, or that you wouldn't find more like-minded people in another party.

It's not your views that are causing the trouble. It's your need to be validated, which is often a symptom of having badly founded views. People rarely look for validation in things they know to be inherently solid and correct.

Being a Democrat is, in my opinion, fundamentally about having a generous but careful interpretation of "equal protection of the laws", which is to say an agreement with the spirit of the 14th Amendment.

The historical role/purpose of the Democratic Party in the present is, albeit unwillingly, to my analysis to bring about the changes in the country so that it lives in a way compatible with Modernity. Modernity is defined by there being no Divine Order defining the society, (Nature) theism having no privileged standing, occultism being discredited, and religious humanism the essential form of religion. The alternative is that grotesque and heretical Gnosticism that is now the true religion of the Right and inseparable from a doctrine of inequality between the initiated and those not initiated. The whole of which we must, and do, reject.

You're in a hard spot, indeed, if I understand your views correctly.

Democrats have fought this present day repeat of the Civil War for long enough and we are going to prevail. We don't need to beg for your help- the old dying and the young joining our side continues to shift things our way. Do what you think is just or act on your vanity, whichever is the stronger need in you- just be honest enough with yourself not to confuse one for the other. The South and Midwest- well, one or two parts of the country will lag the others. We don't mean to discriminate, but adding the Southwest as Blue States will probably be enough to end the Rebell- oops, I meant: the extremist Republican hold on federal power. If Republicans do want to run a couple of states as Christian government, they'll continue to have opportunity to do so- not that they ever have, or probably ever will, but the chance to impress us all to change our views about the things you emphasize will remain for a while yet. So far it's all cover-your-eyes travesty.

Well, good luck.

:thumbsup:

I consider myself an open-minded Christian. I don't feel the need to label myself politically. I am not troubled by the fact that I am not a registered Democrat. Right now, DU is where I think I am at home. If the dems became radically anti-Christian, like Bill Maher, I would have to leave, but right now, my values are best reflected by people that call themselves Democrats.

seems to be IN these days as well. - though i am of the opinion that there are much bigger fish to fry than those you've mentioned above, which are currently a PERSONAL choice. if you asked me i'd prefer it stay that way though, unfortunately, the way things are going today it doesn't look like i will have my wish =( but those 2 issues won't make me change my party the it does have me VERY concerned... i just hope the party actually focuses on some other more pressing - imho - issues as well like war-n-peace, peak-oil, nukes, economy, poverty, civil rights, enviornoment/climate change, etc.

but, hey... aren't we the big-tent party anyways?

however, in the end... only YOU can decide.

:hi:

peace

it is a technique of computer science that uses Darwin's principles to produce computer behavior that is surprisingly life like.

though with life, being so hard to define, even in the physical world, there will always be debates about whether or not that is even a fair term artificial 'life' to describe what is happening in the 'Ethernets' world.

however, there is no disputing the fruits of those principals of newtons in the computer science world and science world in general.

though in our case one can always point to an 'intelligent designer
' at the keyboard that initiated the whole process... but i would point to the randomness that gives birth to complex behaviors that emergence from simple rules interacting with its environment which determines success or failure all according to Darwin's observed and predicted theory, put in practice in the virtual world... in other words a controlled experiment that proves the theory.

i don't know... i guess you could still come away with the thought that a 'geek was still behind the keyboard' who created the universe which then, in turn, gave birth to all this artificial life stuff but, to me i still only see the principals of Darwin's theory being proved by scientific experiments that demonstrates organisms by simply doing only what comes natural to them governed by random circumstances within the constraints of their world's environment as simply natural.

by now, i'm sure i confused the hell out of the very few who actually made it this far by my inane ramblings but for those who haven't been bored to tears already or just curious to what the hell i was rambling about here is a much more detailed and certainly more coherent info on AL
http://www.alife.org/links.html

i can certainly see your pov (ID) :hi:
i hope you can see mine, too =)

peace

that isn't against keeping abortion safe and legal, like most Democratic primary winners. The vast majority of Democrats believe in a higher power, so that's not really an issue.

or not.
Democrats have no official religion, so discussions on one board about different religions doesn't matter in regards to being a democrat. It just so happens you are on a board where the majority of democrats are probably not christians, so you are not going to get a lot of people with the same religious beliefs as yourself. Maybe you would feel more comfortable on a christian democrat board, I'm sure they are out there.

As for being pro-life, so am I and I'm not going anywhere. I have very intelligent discussions here regarding abortion. Sure there are alot of people who don't agree with me, but what should I expect when it is an official party position. I can choose to either be a pro-life democrat who believes in prevention, birth control for teens, Plan B, and support for young and poor mothers, and work to reduce the number of abortions in this country, which pro-life and pro-choice democrats can both support or I can fall in line with the repub freaks who think women who have sex without wanting children should be punished by having babies then thrown out onto the street, just so they can look at them say "See Susie look what happens when you have sex. Bad Bad Bad"

Its OK to argue about issues and even mock others sometimes. Hell I'm polish and my kids are blonde, they are really screwed. If you are true to your beliefs then you should not be offended when a group of democrats (that are not representative of all democrats) doesn't agree with you. If you agree with the majority of the democratic positions more so than other parties then you are democrat, no matter if a bunch of people on one board on the internet don't agree with what only 2 of your beliefs, so what. There are religious forums here if you want a more positive experience regarding that.

I suggest you grow some thicker skin and take the lumps with all the other goodness of DU. The benefits of this place far outweigh a couple disagreements

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you want to defeat the radical right, and you agree with Democrats on most issues, then I think you should join! By the way, I believe abortions have increased under the Bush Administration. Republicans want to make abortion a crime. Democrats want to prevent abortions from happening in the first place!

How can you be pro-life and be progressive?

Termingology is important.

You can't be progressive and hate women.

If the answer is no, then welcome to the Democratic party. I personally don't give two shits about other people's religious beliefs so long as they don't try to mess with the Seperation of Church and State.

He's stated before he wants "Intelligent Design" taught in science class.

In that case, I don't mind that he is a Democrat but he should not expect the party to adopt a stance that is anything different than absolute support of the Seperation of Church and State.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't expect a welcome at over a thousand posts.

The party is inclusive enough.

You want to be anti choice. Fine feel free.

You want to believe in pseudoscientific bullshit like ID, once again feel free.

But don't try to shove that down any of our throats. Those of us on this board aren't changing our platform on abortion rights anytime soon.

The same goes with ID. Intelligent design is a trojan horse for creationism. Now if you want to teach your kids that on your own or in Sunday school, no one is stopping you from doing so, but God has no formal place in a science class. It/He/She cannot be tested. Cannot be verified.

So, no, ID is nonsense and I will continue to shoot it down. I won't mock anyone for their personal beliefs, but I will mock those that want those beliefs tought in a science class.

Nobody has an issue with the fact that you believe it. You are trying to FORCE FEED a religious agenda into secular schools and in doing so, you cram it down the throat of people who may not want their children to have to sit and listen to religious dogma.

Your thread yesterday wasn't about being taught creationism in a class about world religions or in a class about philosophy.

You argued that it should be considered to be tantamount to science.

:yourock:

:toast:

I dunno... sometimes RW principles just don't fit in with this party... a paradox, that.

The repukes do not define our platform. This is their take on things

That said, the more the democrats start to accept anti-choice creationists like you, the less people like me, pro-choice, secular humanist, scientific rationalist, will like to be part of this party.

It's as simple as that. Anti-choice and creationism are conservative right ideas. If you move that far to the right yo run the risk of losing all the people in the left.

There are millions of Democrats. Some of them - those who are generally the most ideologically committed hang out here.

You make the mistake of believing that the reality you see is the only reality.