Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyin145s
You're not serious, are you?
It's not a "private opinion" when he's legeslating in that way. He's involved with passing laws that allow (or disallow) abandoning a living baby to die after birth, so hiding behind all the abortion stuff is out of the question. The baby is out and viable at this point, so all the abortion arguements are out the window. It's now a candidate that supports legally being able to leave a baby to die, voluntarily, AFTER the baby is born, simply because an abortion was saught.
At that point, it's neither "private" nor "opinion".
Oh, but we absolutely HAD to know EXACTLY what a USSC Justice thinks about abortion, didn't we?
|
I'm guilty of what I"ve been blaming others on this thread - I rushed and didn't read the article! I skimmed it and thought it was the same old boring thing about abortion. my applogy, I agree 100% with what you said after reading it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyin145s
"why is the candidate's religion an issue?" you ask? A candidate's religion in itself is not an issue to me, either. But, of course, that's also exactly what I was saying when the religion in question was Mormonism. Remember that one all over the media?
What made his an issue is that Reverand Wright's ideology is politics that hides behind religion, not about Christianity. Also why that church should lose it's tax exempt status. (I thought churches were not allowed to endorse candidates!)
Where in the Christian Bible does it say AIDS was a government conspiracy to kill blacks? How about that we knew in advance about both 9/11 AND Pearl Harbor?
It's not his belief in Christ that made it newsworthy and relevant.
I would like to know a candidate's positions on these issues, especially since they're so radical and he's a candidate with such a short history to look at (especially considering Barak merely voted 'present' 130 times in IL (when he could have voted up or down, but he refused to use all that wonderful 'judgement' he touts)).
Why, then, ask about any candidate's position on anything? Or are you just concerned if they heard it outside church?
If a 30 year old DUI was relevant for Bush, then 20 years of this kind of "ministry" is most certainly worth combing over. I have NO problems with ANY of the Biblical part of that ministry, only the politics that were going on there. The racism, separation, conspiracy theories, etc. It was very hateful and bigoted.
If it were Trent Lott and he were at a church that was screaming "White" this and "white that", I'm SUUURE the Left would have plenty to say about it.
|
so, yes, there is a double standard.
I still stand by what I posted (which is not relevant to the article you posted) which is that religious issues and opinion on abortion are not relevant in an election. I do agree with you however, that if a candidate does subscribe to some fanatical, rediculous, baseless cult that worships things that don't exist, we have to examine their mental state in general and they may not be fit for office. unfortonately, based on my views on all religions, all candidates fall under this description because all religions do...
You certainly should ask a candidate's position on all political issues that they will deal with as president, and currently abortion is on that list. my point was that there is no logical reason why it should be a political issue, if indeed "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."