Amen.

In less than 5 minutes, you completely destroyed the leftist arguments about how we were founded as a secularist nation…and you were funny at the same time (7-letter word for made). Keep making vids. Keep saying what needs to be said.

God Bless.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Tweeting, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigHollywood: When Does Life Begin, Y’all?: http://bit.ly/q1sBg #BigTweet [...]

I respect everyone's beliefs that abortion is bad, and I respect that your religion is a very important thing in your lives.

What I don't like is the assumption that all conservatives are Christian, and that everyone else is a "secularist leftist."

I believe in limited government. Low taxes. The government having as limited a role in my life as possible.

And you better believe that includes having the government throw a religious ideology down my throat that I do not believe in.

The left paints all of us as these stereotype of Bible thumping, anti-choice extremists.

I'm afraid the right might agree with them.

We are a big tent party (The GOP). And I hereby, on behalf of the secularist conservatives, RESPECTFULLY ask that you religious conservatives don't just ASSUME that your social/religious beliefs, speak for everyone. They don't.

“The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible”

–Thomas Jefferson.

Founding Father.

You certainly got one thing right: A woman's right to do what she wants with her body is TOTALLY TRUMPED by her baby's right to life.

There's no doubt that Jefferson would be horrified at the abortion culture in this country. But Jefferson was no Christian. He was a Deist, believing there was no personal God who intervened in human lives. He re-wrote the Bible, removing all Jesus's miracles and mysticism. His version was called The Jefferson Bible.

He believed Jesus was neither the Son of God, nor born of a virgin.

On that topic: "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

Jefferson wasn't perfect or omniscient. Jesus is both those things.

I love how conservatives are giving me negative reps on me sharing my true beliefs.

Life? Don't you mean HUMAN life? Well, what defines us as human? It is conscious thought. So, it isn't until some time AFTER birth. As far as I'm concerned, the Romans had it right or were actually far too lenient. I think a parent should have the right to kill their own children up until the early teens.

I'm right there with you. I consider myself a damned fine Conservative.

I also have no religious affiliations or beliefs.

Well, you'll find many Conservatives whose religious beliefs trump their political principles.

I have a few authoritative sources listed here;
http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com/2009/11/wh...

An entity which, left unmurdered, will become a human, IS a human.

Excellent presentation, Zo. I'm pretty sure I had the same DNA five days after I was conceived as I'll have when (if I make it) I'm 60. There is no justification for abortion and they've tried every trick in the book. It all comes down to this; do we have the right to kill? It's really that simple. I hope the post by TonyTwoShoes is just a sick joke. I've noticed this view existed before but it's horrendous every time I encounter it. Euthanasia and eugenics are gaining acceptance and with thinking like this, why not? Is it okay to kill someone who's asleep since they aren't aware of any conscious thoughts? Sick stuff, people, whether you believe in God or not.

I hate to see that. It's a head-in-the-sand, la-la-la-I-can't-HEAR-you mentality.

If it doesn't fit, it can't be true. If it turns out to be true, it's morally wrong. It doesn't matter that your remarks were temperate, and never intended to insult or hurt anyone. It's just a freaky little thing we call religion.

So what would have happen..kick out all the religious cons like the blue bloods want? They make a pretty big part of this party, yet are castigated or mocked by those who don't go to church.

As for abortion, I work with someone who only cares about abortion (yet has popped out two different kids with two different dads, lives with her parents, has them take of the kids and despite being fully employed chooses to take medicaid as opposed to our own insurance because it's cheaper-there's another lesson there too) being available. That being said, I can't imagine people on the right being so narrow focused on this issue it blinds them into another route come 2010 because that's all they look at.

And I hereby on behalf of those who don't make big bold proclamations in some comment thread ask that you secularists understand that if the GOP were made up of only you guys, it would go the way of the Whigs.

You're welcome…and God bless.

I appreciate that—I was actually hesitant to say anything because I figured I'd get a negative response, but damn it's my party too! I'm not the only one, obviously. And I might be pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm pro abortion either. I think it is way over-used and I think it's used in a very irresponsible way, and I don't think it has the social stigma it deserves.

But, those are MY beliefs, they don't come from the Bible, just like your beliefs, don't come from the Bible, we might have different views but they are the result of our own reasoning, and our own conclusions…. not some authoritative voice that demands it be so otherwise we go to Hell.

It very much bothers me to see the Right mocked by the media, and it seems like gay rights, abortion, and religion are the easiest targets. I think that is entirely unfair, but I have to say, often the right plays right into that.

If the day comes that you have to be a Christian to be a Republican, this man is voting Libertarian.

BRAVO. Very well done. Though at first I was afraid because his skin color doesn't look like mine, so I grabbed my Bible and my gun…

As long as a person loves the U.S. Constitution and this great country, I'm not offended that they also love religion. As rjc said, it's none of my business. However, I do think that, in the public arena, we need to concentrate on political principles. Government policies should never take into account WWJD or Biblical teachings. They should hew strictly to what the Constitution allows, and not even all of that. Just because a potential law is Constitutional doesn't make it necessary. We're adults, and our adult minds should be all we need.

Example: I think the pro-life position is an ethical position, since it prevents a right (to life) being violated. On the other hand, I don't think that laws allowing prayer in schools spring from either ethical thought or a love for the Constitution.

I agree. I can't help but think the Founders were having these exact same discussions amongst themselves when they were painstakingly creating the documents that are the basis of our nation.

I'm of the belief that the Founders knew the potential for religious fervor to seep into politics. They knew this exact scenario could play out. People keep saying that "Creator" means the God of the Bible, but I believe that they purposefully put it in there the way it was, just so that it couldn't be used for a specific religion. That is a personal opinion.

Thank you for replying.

I believe those men who crafted that great document, our precious Constitution, were more than willing to do the work, to study the ramifications of every word. There's no telling how many hours of sleep they lost, just attempting to do the right thing.

One thing that could (and, I believe, should) unify us Conservatives is our love for that founding document, and our disgust at those who, like President Obama, would trample it underneath his foot (the same one he just used to smash a cigarette butt).

I've often thought about that word, "Creator." Your opinion is an interesting one. I've come to the conclusion that, even if they (wrongly, in my view) considered the Christian God the Creator of humanity, at least they had the good sense to write the Establishment Clause. To me, the wording is pretty clear. It doesn't matter how right or wrong your religion might be, the government cannot be in the business of promoting it.

This is off topic, and I'm pretty sure you've seen this already, but the John Adams miniseries does a phenomenal job of showing (as accurately as possible I suppose) how hard the Founders worked on the Constitution, and how seriously they were taking, every word. Completely inspirational, and made me feel optimistic again when some of the Obama news was getting me down.

No matter what they were, or weren't thinking, they were extremely forward-looking and the fact we can even have this discussion is a true testament to their work and vision.

I am a lifelong Christian who completely agrees with you. The last thing I want for my child is to be taught religion by a public schoolteacher she is forced to learn from or have the government enforce their version of religion. The Left sells the stereotype of the Right-wing Social Conservative because it's the best way to convince young voters that they are the "cool party." Personally, I find nothing more restrictive or boring than the slaves to political correctness on the Left.

As for abortion, I detest it and wish it never happened, but would never, ever vote for someone making it illegal. I loved someone very deeply who almost died during childbirth (and would have if not for a very observant nurse). You can't force a person to undergo something that could kill them because you believe you know what's best for them. The second we can make childbirth 100% safe (including the entire pregnancy), I'll rethink my position.

I so want to see the series, and I hope that I soon shall.

The reading I've done, such as The Federalist Papers and historical accounts, fills me with respect, even awe, for the incredible tasks to which they set themselves.

In that day, people all over the world were amazed at the document. They were astounded that there had been no naked power grab, that men of good will and intellect had joined together to create this marvel. I am humbled at my great good luck, to have been born in the United States of America, where this brilliant legal document guarantees my rights. We mustn't let would-be tinhorn tyrants such as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, ,et al, usurp that which was given us, given us in the face of grave peril, at that.

Wow! That was eloquent.

Thank you for the well-considered remarks. Twenty-five years ago, when I was a Christian, I also held your view about having an agent of the government (a schoolteacher) teach my children religion. Even today, one of the staunchest advocates of keeping religion out of the schools is a Christian minister.

Please forgive this off-topic remark. One of the heroes of my life was a Baptist minister during my teen-age years. He was kind and courageous and lived his beliefs to the end.

Totally agree. And am totally inspired to watch the series again. It piqued my interest in the Jefferson-Adams letters as well, letters they wrote to each other in old age to sort of patch up any problems they had in their friendship, and where they talk about all their hopes and dreams of what the country could be, and their concerns of what could be.

I really wish the Left would show respect for these people, but their legacy is too strong, I'm afraid, for the Terror Trio you just listed, to destroy.

Again, your remarks are well-voiced and appreciated. Certainly, you're right that abortion won't be illegal any time soon.

I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that most abortions are simply a form of birth control, not a reaction to medical risks. I should've been more clear: I was speaking of natural rights, rather than legal rights. The ethics of the abortion issue are (in my view) on the baby's side, particularly when there are no pressing medical issues. (And I recognize that women die during childbirth, even when there was no apparent medical risk up to that point in the pregnancy.)

When it comes to late-term abortions where there is no clear danger to baby or mom, maybe those who believe in them SHOULD vote Democrat. One thing is pretty apparent: Unlimited rights to abortions form a permanent part of the Democrat's political platform. The number of abortions performed since Roe vs Wade is breathtaking.

I don't think it's ethical, and it breaks my heart. I weep for the babies, but also for the moms and dads.

Plenty of non Christians believe abortion is wrong. It was just a Christian's perspective. No matter how much you may dislike it though, we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles. Who is trying to force your conversion?

And with all this talk of "Christian Principles" some of you guys may want to read a book called "The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass". Christianity has been used for an excuse for a lot of things in American History. This is nothing new.

This video by far is the best you have ever done Zo! I would suggest to everyone to help make this video viral. If I had the cash I would buy time on all networks (yes the worthless ones) just to see the utter Fail on their faces.
Zo destroys all the worthless networks arguments.

I'm sorry, what is my mantra? Where was I wrong? What you wrote was not even the argument.

Does the bible need to be used to justify not killing the unborn? To me, it just is common decency. I do not understand how killing something so completely innocent can be embraced so fervently – selfishness? It is also confusing when people who strongly support the right to abort get the vapors when the state kills a murderer. It is fine to kill the innocent, but try to shock the life out of a serial killer and then suddenly life is sacrosact?

Your logic carried – why stop at birth? If I have a one year old and I find myself in a heckuva financial pickle, have lost my home and can barely fed myself – why can't I just off the kid. You know, for its sake. How about a two or three year old?

I guess if we really followed the bible, those who took the lord's name in vain or took a false idol would have to go. But yeh… we don't do that. So much for that nonsensical argument.

— On Wed, 11/11/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

My argument is you can't use the Bible as a basis for U.S. Law. I think the aim of this issue in the nation at large is to somehow use the "weight" of God to be the deciding vote, and you can't do that. That is my main point. The additional point is, a request that the GOP religious right realize that they are not necessarily the majority of the party.

Your "mantra" doesn't have anything to do with that particular point. And I disagree with it. Not all the founders felt the same way on religion. As long as you are not claiming that "They were Christian, therefore we will make sure our law are based on the Bible", then we have no disagreement.

"My logic"—I've already stated that abortion is abused and that it doesn't have the stigma it deserves. I think it's used as birth control, and I think it's obscene to do so.

"What troubles me the most is how many potential Einstein's or Mother Theresa's have been thrown in the trash bin."

With all due respect…. this is the MOTHER (please pardon the pun) of all fundamentally-hollow anti-abortion arguments; and it continues to amaze me that people never challenge it.

Yes, it's technically true that you COULD be depriving the world of the next Einstein, Mother Theresa, etc. via abortion. However, by that same token is every bit as true that you could be SAVING the world from the next Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, bin Laden, Michael Bay, etc. One kinda neutralizes the other…

I noticed someone downward thumbed my entry to you. It happens. We won't all agree. I did not downward thumb you even though I think your logic is twisted. If you called me a name I would have… maybe. Probably not.

That's the problem with this argument. It's not between people who hate abortions and people who think they are fine (although a lot of people on the extremes would have you believe so). Most people fall into the, "I hate it, but don't think it's right to make it a crime" camp. The question is, since we know that not every fetus will become a baby (no one knows the miscarriage percentages, but they are significant), that not every pregnancy that seems fine will end fine, and that not everyone who chooses an abortion does so capriciously, how do we change the laws to accommodate all these facts?

Personally, I think the Right needs to focus on the things that can actually be accomplished (i.e. parental notification, forcing abortion clinics to give patients all the facts, give real choices to women who don't want to (or can't) raise their children, etc…). Since this is an area of faith for many people, I understand the fervor of those who mourn every lost child and can understand why they can't just settle for small victories. Eventually they are going to have to recognize that getting rid of Roe v. Wade isn't going to happen (it's been what, 40 years?), and try to figure out the best way to reduce the number as a pragmatic option.

My biggest concern is the parental notification. As the father of a 9 year-old girl, the thought of her getting in to trouble, then being talked into something as obscene as surgery without my knowledge is frightening. I think that's something we could get done tomorrow, and should be the main focus of pro-life groups until it gets passed (we got it here in Lib-land Chicago, so I know it would be possible to get it everywhere). I'm less concerned with what adults do than children, who are so scared that they can be talked into taking incredibly stupid risks.

Good point. We'd better have all our potential kids aborted just to make sure.

(Last post was deleted, I'm trying again)

Or we could let individual citizens of a free society make up their own mind. I mean, that tends to work sometimes…

To the religion in politics discussion you must remember this. The founding fathers tried not to mingle church with state because doing so would pollute the church…not the state.

Actually no. Some forms of the pill and the IUD make the uterus unable to receive implantation of an egg. Others keep the woman from ovulating at all. The condom and the dam are the ones that keeps the egg and sperm from meeting. A few kill the sperm.

Agreed with most of what you said HPJ. However, I don't think it is a law that "allows" prayer in school. It is actually a law that doesn't "ban" prayer in school. There is a small but significant difference and it deals with first amendment rights.

On another topic. Having a gov't or political ideology based on Judeo-Christian values doesn't necessarily imply everyone is Christian. It just implies that there are a set of values that are traditionally Christian.

For those of us who have studied these values, we recognize that what we call Judeo-Christian values are really just a set of values based on good common sense and civil norms. Christians have been taught and have adopted these values via the Ten Commandments among other places.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, is pretty much the gist.

Your wife and you did not decide. Use the correct word: She chose. And good for her that she feels she made the right choice, because that is the whole point. Her choice would be valid either way, as long as she was the one who made it.

I don't think I've ever been around a better discussion on abortion than this one.

To have people with heartfelt opinions on all sides of this issue, yet to read one well-reasoned comment after another: This is truly extraordinary. After all, this issue epitomizes the term "hot-button."

Thank you for replying, SQT.

Wanda, I've seen quite a few of your comments. You're a good and thoughtful commenter, I think. As for me, I haven't been as good as I should have, but I'm trying to make a change.

I'm proud of my Conservative brothers and sisters who contributed to this thread. Thanks for the great remarks.

Thank you for the educational comments. You've inspired me (an atheist) to do a bit of research.

This is new information to me. Thanks for passing it on. I plan to delve into it.

^^^^ I'm not very well educated, LOL, getting started late in life.

Please tell me you forgot the /sarc tags…

The same mind set that allows a crime to be called a hate-crime when there is no love crime(unless your gay in Iran), or say termination instead of kill or murder, or say lightly wounded when an Israelly, or to say deranged person to avoid terrorist while denying it is the same, or Rush is a hate monger like Al, or attacking the arguer and not his/her/it's logic, to ignore a news story because it is provacative, to not enforcing the law because it would be inconvenient, to ignore a law abideing american is banned from an ally country, I can go on, as so we all.

Hi again rjc,

I think, as far as your and my conversation is going, we're the victims of a slight misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that ALL the founding fathers were Christian. Many were. Some (such as Jefferson, which this video regrettably got wrong) weren't.

I don't think that anybody for ANY reason (religious or otherwise) has to create laws that interfere in your life unless such laws are in allignment with the Bill of Rights (ie—laws about drinking and driving do interfere with one's life, but these laws have a very, very good reason for existing).

What I was saying was that the founders used Judeo-Christian PRINCIPLES. Not quite the same thing. A guy may not believe the Bible to be the word of God, but he may find the major ideas on man's place in the world and how he relates to his fellow men appealing.

Choosing to relegate the significance of the human embryo to mere cellular mass to aid in it's indiscriminate destruction is not happenstance. The destruction of liberty is similarly accomplished through the systematic deconstruction of the tenets found in our Declaration of Independence. There are no coincidences here.

If scientists discovered a fetus on Mars, would they call it life? If they found a zygote on Mars, would it be considered life?

But don't expect I won't try to convert you. LOL

The problem is that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops tends to lean, if not actually to the left, then toward the mushy center. It isn't an organization with much actual power within the Church, but its guidelines and recommendations tend to carry convincing force (more than they should, really) among American clergy.

Actually, it is our DNA that defines as human, not our conscious thought. (If that were true, we wouldn't be human while we're sleeping or unconscious). It is an established scientific fact that human life then begins at conception – the zygote is human (has human DNA) and is alive and will develope into a full-grown human being (which distinguishes it from, say, a skin cell with human DNA). I've heard of debates about "personhood," but no one can seriously argue that a zygote, embryo, fetus, or newborn is not human, because it would be blatantly, scientifically untrue.

Duly noted. However, in those cases we're still talking about a fertilized egg or preventing the sperm and egg from meeting (by killing the sperm or preventing the egg from even making an appearance).

Here is a different position than any of you have heard before. Go ahead and trash it, but this is what I believe, and you can't change that. I believe I am a soul, not just a body.

I believe that if a woman decides, with the help of her doctor, to not have the baby growing inside of her…….she has that right. I believe that abortion is a horrible thing to do, but I believe that we do not have the right to prevent her from having that done. I also believe that the soul who would have been born in that body, is born into some other body.

So, bottom line is, as long as you don't claim God as final interpreter of the law, we have no disagreement.

I as a anti-abortionist to the max would not ever think about a total ban. When used as a medical procedure to save a life it a must some times. A hard choice but one that would need to be made. What I would like to see banned is birth control because someone did not think before sex.

The 'separation of church & state' that is so vehemently argued by ignorant people who have no clue as to what the 1st Amendment actually states is pretty straight forward. The ACLU and activist judges have been able to re-define what it actually means. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Period! In other words, they can't establish a national religion. This DOES NOT mean that you can't be a Christian, Jew, or any other religion and be in the government, or exercise that religion wherever you may be. We have taken it to such a perverse level (i.e., crosses in public areas, nativities on government land,etc…) But, I digress…

Good one, there!

Better put: There are people whose faith trumps politics.

Even Jefferson had faith and believed in a creator – something greater than himself that made us. It has been a while, but I believe he sought evidence of God in nature rather than the bible.

But to expand – there were other founding fathers, but I understand the desire to make Jefferson the go to guy here. If you looked at the others, then the argument falls apart a bit.

Well said Sam. Best not to forget it.

That's not important. What is important, is that I am not trying to force my beliefs onto anyone else. But that is exactly what the right wing Christians are trying to do. They BELIEVE that abortion is the same as murder and are trying to force that belief onto others.

Can you maybe find the original source of that quote? Where did Jefferson write this or say it? It's rumored to be in his autobiography but if so, can you tell me the page number?
I think that this "quote" is of those pesky internet rumors that can't be substantiated, on a par with the "Bill Gates is giving away free computers" email. I would believe neither statement unless I saw proof for myself.

Yes, there is a difference, and I can see why a religious Conservative would feel better thinking that faith trumped the slightly grubby "politics," as opposed to having religious beliefs trump the more high-minded "political principles." However, I intended to say political principles, so for me, your version isn't better put.

A good example: A religious Conservative firmly believes in limited government, and in preventing government intrusion, particularly the kind prohibited by the Constitution. Yet, he firmly believes that God directly said to human kind, "…Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation…" (Mark 16:15), which leads him to endorse teacher-led prayer in schools. To me, that isn't faith trumping politics. It's religious belief trumping political principle.

Another good example, featuring the religious Conservative.

In the past, he might've endorsed the so-called "anti-sodomy laws." These laws made potential criminals of millions of married couples, but it was commonly "understood" (wink, wink, nudge) that the laws would be used only against gay men and woman. If you strip the argument down to bare essentials, no Conservative could endorse such laws. However, a faithful member of a religious group might feel obliged to support them. (Might or might not, I should say.)

In Georgia, there was a gay man who committed crimes other than sodomy. The police couldn't get enough evidence to arrest him for the more serious crimes, so they broke down the door of his hotel room, to "discover" him violating the sodomy laws with another man. Long story short, the gay man took his case to the Supreme Court and (correctly, I think) prevailed. The SCOTUS ruled the sodomy law unconstitutional. In my view, any religious Conservative who supported laws regulating behavior between consenting adults proved himself more religious than Conservative, thereby allowing religious belief to trump political principle.

Where does the ethic or value concerning the protection and care of those members of our society who cannot take care of themselves, whether due to mental or physical infirmity, age, innocence or other circumstance, come from?

Why should we value the weak and sick members of our society? What value is an unborn person? An elderly person? A mute? A blind or deaf person? What about someone with AIDS?

Do governments dictate that we must behave with compassion? Can the government withdraw compassion when compassion no longer serves the government interest?

Your statement that "religion has no role in government policy" shows how little credit you give to Judeo-Christian ethics, and how pronounced an effect they HAVE HAD on our policies (up to now, anyway).

The US should not establish Christianity or Judaism as its state religion, but neither should all traces of religious life be purged from anything Federal. Once religion is scrubbed away, The State will become the new "religion".

Jesus hasn't let me down. People frequently disappoint, though.

"but as long as Conservatives (especially men) try to tell women that they'll be forced to go through a pregnancy against their will (even if it's doubtful the baby would survive, or if it could be dangerous to the woman).."

I have NEVER, EVER, heard or read anywhere, ANY Republican, Conservative or Independent say that a preganant woman would be forced to carry to term if her life were in danger, or if she had been a victim of rape or incest. NEVER.

Absolutely agree. While I respect everyone's right to worship how they choose, I personally see a discrepancy between the worshiping of a God King (Jesus) who has the authority to punish you. Yet, when it comes to government, they want no king, and no on with the authority to punish them.

And that's the reason I ask what exactly is so "Christian" about conservatism that they are perceived to be one in the same. I'm of the view that being conservative is simply about, limited government. I don't see what religion has to do with that.

I see your point. And I don't disagree with it. See my other post responding to you on this same topic.

I am a libertarian at heart and people using God being on their side and going around supposing they know what God wants – it raises my hackles. The politicians that claimed Terry Schiavo as their political toy for instance – ICK. Some like Rick Santorum have learned their lesson (I think).

That is why I keep my faith between me and the Lord and not between me, the Lord and some guy claiming he knows God better than I.

— On Thu, 11/12/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

If someone is proffering a quote from someone, then I think they should be able to back it up, don't you? Do you think it makes good sense to believe everything you read on the internet without any form of proof? Btw, I just checked the official Jefferson wiki at http://wiki.monticello.org and could not find anything to substantiate your claim that Jefferson "personally rewrote the Bible to remove all supernatural elements." However, they do prove that he said this in 1823, to John Adams, "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." Sounds like his time was filled with religious posers and hypocrites like ours.

Interestingly, the "Spurious Quotes" section debunks many of the common "sayings" that are erroneously attributed to Jefferson.

Also, I would love to hear more about your statements of "Biblical revisions and omissions made by kings and politicized, bureaucratic clergymen."
Then again, maybe this isn't the place for this subject. However, I would appreciate it if you can point me to a reliable vetted source proving your assertions?

For everyone, if you're looking for a decent book on Bible history, I would recommend either, "In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture" by Alister McGrath or "Wide as the Waters : The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired" by Benson Bobrick. Both books are objective and well researched and free of unprovable claims.

I did not think you were being rude. Lucky me. Being thick comes in handy – softens life's sharp corners!

— On Thu, 11/12/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

Have you checked out the "Spurious Quotes" section of the official Jefferson wiki? http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Ca... They debunk a lot of the so-called "quotes" of Jefferson that are posted online today. Imo, everyone that is interested in the truth of history should take the time to find out what Jefferson did or did not say.

LOL — You're not thick. Sharp as a tack, more like it.

That is a laudable and much appreciated position to take HPJ. Friendly, civil discussion, even debate, is always the most enjoyable kind.

I hope that it is no insult to mention that the Bible puts it this way; "An answer, when mild, turns away rage, but a word causing pain makes anger to come up" and "let your utterances always be seasoned with salt".

Best regards!

I regret that I've been extreme in my remarks. You're right, of course, that civility makes a discussion or debate more enjoyable. I'm hoping, also, that threads in which I'm involved might be more productive, as well. I'd like to think that a visitor to these pages could view a thread and think, "Wow, those Conservatives strongly disagree with each other, but don't become disagreeable."

There is no glory in vilifying a Conservative brother or sister, or, for that matter a civil-tongued Liberal, either.

No insult taken for the Bible verses, and I'm sure none was intended. Thank you for replying.

I'm very serious about my commitment to do better. I appreciate the quotes and the encouraging words.

Good thinking and writing, flyright66. I enjoyed your comments.

I'm with rjcylon. Well said.

I see, that makes more sense now. Well, basically my conservative beliefs are just low government, minimal intrusion into people's private lives. I think that just comes naturally from an individual's desire to be free, and left alone to live out their lives.

I usually just read, but the ignorance of this subject is staggering. I am one of those dreaded "Christian, social Cons. What you don't realize is that most states had exceptions in their laws for these "rare" cases before Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was not overturned for these cases. They were overturned for

Now I have just given you legit legal reason why Roe v. Wade should not have been overturned. I can give you ethic, medical, Constitutional reasons why abortion should not be used. I can do all this while being a Social Con. My religion helps me make ethical decisions. I have to decide if those decisions effect a greater good? Protecting the innocence does. Then you don't come at the issue religiously. You come at it legally and constitutionally. A embryo is baby is toddler is child is an adult. life begins at conception. With no outer interference, that embryo will grow to be a baby. If you cut that life, you have taken a life. The act is simple, but the ramifications last for years. Woman are told that the babies are just blobs of skin. These women will go through months even years of morning, because of the lies people like planned parenthood have told them. Pro-Choicers certainly don't want their clients to have an educated choice hence the reason that they don't show the ultrasound.

No, it is the arrogance of thinking that you are the "big tenter" and they saying things like religion has not place in government and by extension religious people. The first amendment actually states that Congress cannot establish a religion nor restrict. Children praying in school is entirely constitutional if they are doing it invidually. BTW, it has always been a FEDERAL religion that the Constitution restricted. The states up until the 19th had state sanctioned churches. But I digress.

Wrong way of looking at it. That is like looking at slavery as a "property rights issues." That is how the state saw slaves until it didn't. They were on a certain percentage of a person. Pro-slaverers believed that the government had no right getting into the "property" decisions. They were wrong. Conservative new that. That is why the Republican party was formed.

An elective abortion is not a "medical decision." It is an elective procedure that ends a life. Embryology ANY embryology book states that life begins at conception. Without any interference from the mother, the child will continue grow to full term. A embryo is another stage in life. A embryo is a baby is a toddler is a child is an adult. There are two different DNA codes in the mothers bodies. She does not own the child. The child is not property. It is not a mole. You are protecting a living human being. — Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness– Of the three= Life is most important, because you cannot have the other two with out it.

90% of all abortions are for convenience. A baby is simply not wanted. Something like 25% of those abortions come after the 13th week. The main reasons women get later abortions are: 1)ignorant of the pregnancy; 2)lazy and didn't get around to it; 3)lacked the funds; 4)tried to use the baby as a way to keep her man and that failed; 5)couldn't make up their mind; 6)thought about adoption and got scared.

Other reasons why women get abortions: 1)embarrassment for getting pregnant; 2) too many kids already;3)forgot to use birth control; 4)scared of what parents will think; 5)boyfriend dumped them; 6) think they can't afford a baby.

Less than 10% of all abortions deals with incest, rape and/or medical condition/safety of the mother.

Very few women will ever think: "I have empowerment over my womb" when considering getting abortion. Most are driven by fear and/or selfish reasons.

We as a society need to consider whether or not "convenience" is a good enough reason to rip a growing fetus out of a womb–because that is exactly what an abortion does. Let's not sanitize it. Abortion is cruel and unjust torture against a completely innocent being.

If we were ripping calves out of the wombs of cows to use as a delicacy, PETA would be all over that and we all know it.

Maybe you and others like you could concentrate on public policy. That is the very thing which affects Americans' everyday lives. Political principle trumps everything for me. It also trumps my atheism. This is why I have no problem voting for a Christian candidate. But, I digress. I'm quite certain that you'd be more than willing to vote for an atheist who shares your political principles, right? Right? No? Wow, that surprises me.

It really doesn't.

And yeah well guess what? There's no doubt in my mind that you've already voted for an atheist. Lots of folks talk the Jesus talk to get your vote. There are even (a few) atheist ministers. Some stay in it for the no-heavy-lifting aspect of the "work." Others believe they're doing a public service by preaching the Gospel.

Political principle. Public policy. That's where the rubber meets the road. I'm as good a Conservative as you or anyone else I've seen in these pages. I won't accept second-class status, simply because I'm an unbeliever.

Well, go ahead and source me some quotes then and enlighten me on who says these sorts of things, because I'd like to know.
And I wouldn't consider them "pro-choice" so much as "pro-decency". Attempting to FORCE a woman to carry a child to term even if it means it may kill her and/or the child is barbaric. We don't need anyone intruding on a woman's personal decisions after she's suffered other atrocities, either- while it would just pile another atrocity on, the woman has suffered and needs to feel in control of SOMETHING. What she decides as far as her pregnancy goes should be left to her.
What most conservatives/Republicans etc are against is the late-term, contraception-substitute, for convenience type abortions, and the fight to keep parents out of the loop. And it's surprising that more blacks aren't joining their voices, considering that Planned Parenthood is ending more young black lives than inner-city violence ever did.

I was replying to some of the comments that rjc made, and if you read all his comments- there were some openly hostile comments regarding religious people. I accidently replied under your comment. Now about voting for an atheist. Of course, I would vote for an atheist if he shared my political views. A lot of atheist are pro-life, although I am not a one issue vote. The atheist would have to be Conservative.

The mention of state sanctioned religion was to prove a point of how entrenched religion was in the daily lives of the founders. I do not want a 'state' religion. I have more of a problem with the decision to ban religion from the public square in the last few decades. Re: children praying in school.. again I direct you attention to a previous post which references this. I came late to this post, and read them all in one shot- my posts were kind of a hodge podge of all of them.

You made a unselfish difficult decision. My friend did also. She has a down syndrome child who is a joy. He teaches us something new everyday. We call him God's child. He knows nothing but love. God Bless you and your family.

Life begins when science says it does – at conception.

And guess what? God also agrees with this science!