It should play no role whatsoever in laws or governance. When religion comes into play, there is no equality.

many Americans equate atheism with amorality. They cannot conceive that it is entirely possible to be an atheist and a deeply moral and compassionate person. I want to hear politicians talking about moral values in a non-religious way -- especially talking about corruption of politicians and political processes. I don't want to hear that my country was founded by Christians, when many of our founding fathers weren't Christians, but Deists and Freemasons, who abhored established religion. Our country was founded during the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and beginnings of science.

that is based on the erroneous belief that only religion can create moral values.

Clearly, that's not true.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Democrats embracing their religion. That religion is going to influence their actions regardless of whether or not they openly refer to it. My concern with the Republican version of religion is that they want to force everyone--including their fellow Christians with whom they disagree--to buckle under and serve that religion. That is what is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, we secularists continue to make gains among the belief systems of the nation. I think that trend will increase as time goes on.

Basing government decisions on them is not fine. Imposing one's religious beliefs on others is not fine. I don't want to hear about them from people in government at all.

I have been fighting the growing religion-in-government movement for many decades. It has been the focus of my political activity.

We see that problem right here on DU.

Is it understandable? Justified? Baseless?

Political parties are coalitions. Various parts of the coalition will always have have competing perspectives and therefore there will be friction among them.

Not justified because the coalition needs to work together, especially at the present moment. The religious left and the secular left have far more to unite them politically than disagree about. If the coalition is successful now, we could achieve a lot together. Like many successful coalitions, it may eventually come apart, but that would mean our interests have diverged so much that the coalition is no long worth it.

And look at the relative size of the non-religious in the Democratic coalition.

Which group will need to cater to which going forward?

It's always an ongoing negotiation. At the moment we should set aside any differences, and I don't see any major policy differences anyway right now.

There hasn't really been an organized religious left outside the AA community. Some are trying to create one now. If they are not successful, you have nothing to worry about. If they are, there will be an ongoing negotiation. Initially it wouldn't be difficult, we all want healthcare, environmental protection, clean government etc. Assuming we get those things, other issues will come forward and then it might get tense.

You expect religion.to continue to weaken in future years, so the maybe the religious left won't last long anyway. On the other hand, changing social conditions might strengthen religion. History isn't a straightforward progression, it's more of a zigzag.

How about we base our coalition on shared progressive principles and goals, and not religion?

Is that such a crazy idea?

Is your problem that some people are progressive because Jesus says so, or is your problem that a group of those people show up at the polls in a church bus? Or maybe it's just that they say "Jesus said so" outside of a church?

They're either non-religious, or non-Christian.

Perhaps the focus should be on building the coalition without Jesus talk.

Are you now telling religious people to shut up? What happens if they don't?

Let's just not base our platform on what people think Jesus wants. I've been damn consistent saying that the entire time.

Rather their God always seems to want a good progressive platform. It's intellectually convenient for them, but if it gets them to the polls, I don't mind. I view the religious left as a motivational thing for religious left-leaning people who might otherwise not volunteer or vote. I don't know how many of these people there are. Not many in the past, but after Trump, maybe there are more.

I don't see any basis on which to make such a sweeping statement. There most certainly are people who think the reason we need to feed the poor is because Jesus did, or told us to.

And maybe I should limit myself to leaders, because among the masses you could find anything. Is there any religious left leader who takes a non-progressive position because of religion?

This thread is still in the first page of this group:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218314242

"...I believe the sacred personhood of an individual begins before birth and continues throughout life, and I believe that sacred personhood is worth protecting, whether it’s tucked inside a womb, waiting on death row, fleeing Syria in search of a home, or playing beneath the shadow of an American drone." -- Rachel Held Evans

Granted, she recently passed away, but she was honored right here on DU as a religious left leader.

In fact, there are quite a few religious leaders on the left who have taken non-progressive positions on abortion, homosexuality, etc. because of religion. I can find more if you'd like.

Held Evans didn't believe in making abortion illegal, she wanted to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions. I agree with that position generally.

She may not sound pro-choice enough for you here. She seems to like "safe, legal and rare," which was big in the 90s, and I thought was good, but we don't hear so much about it anymore. Maybe I'm behind the times with that too.

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12369912/hillary-clinton-pro-life

Don't even try.

And because I might refuse to rule out such a thing until I get more details, maybe I'm not a progressive either. Perhaps I'm really a moderate. Not the first time I've broken with progressive orthodoxy myself.

She still wanted more restrictions. Her own words say so: "So even though I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it..."

We already have a number of legal restrictions. Too many, according to lots of women. Wanting more is NOT a progressive position. At all. But clearly you're so committed to your argument now that you're insinuating I'm some kind of liberal extremist enforcing "progressive orthodoxy" by not wanting more restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

I will now note that I successfully answered your question, which again was:

Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I call myself progressive, but there are certain issues I don't get into often. Abortion is one of them. That's because I have certain views that MIGHT be interpreted as less than 100% supportive of all abortion rights in all cases. Like I side it MIGHT be interpreted that way, not that it is that way, but I could easily see a long controversial thread about something I didn't say and don't mean.

So rather than argue with you about whether a position I don't hold is actually progressive or not or if one could still be a progressive if one only agrees with the progressive position 9 out of 10 times, I basically conceded she might not be a progressive and observed that might mean I'm not either.

That doesn't mean I'm smart. It just means I'm willing to entertain or might even believe certain ideas that most progressives would reject out of hand.

This is not the first time in the last few years I've considered whether I'm still a progressive and not the only issue on which I might not be in sync with the progressive movement on. I started off life as a moderate, became more liberal as I got older, but lately it seems the progressive movement is moving on without me. That's okay with me. My disagreement or concern on certain issues doesn't mean I'm right and you are a liberal extremist.

Not interested in hearing your justification for restricting abortion rights.

that you oppose the reproductive rights part of our platform. That's dangerous territory.

Other than it might be misconstrued and result in a pointless argument in which I'm expected to defend something I don't actually believe.

I tend to avoid political arguments on DU. I have other places I can go for political arguments. I don't see a point to arguing with political allies.

On opposing part of a platform because it is "dangerous territory." Well that's what I mean by "progressive orthodoxy." I don't mean orthodoxy in any religious sense. I mean it in the sense that certain ideas are not to be questioned because it's dangerous to do so. Before you say I am trying to hurt women or something like that, remember I didn't tell you what my views on reproductive rights are, so you have no way to determine if they would actually hurt anyone or not.

Not a popular view on DU.

And that considering such a thing could be taken as less than 100% supportive of abortion rights. Which is pretty much how you took it.

But whatever, you do you. You've got a uterus in the game, right?

in cooperation with a woman.

I consider a lot of things, some much more repulsive than that. I follow my own thinking wherever it leads me. It's not possible for me to be repelled by a thought.

You've dug yourself a deep enough hole. We're done here.

I never thought of abortion as just a "women's problem." My responsibility does not end at the tip of my penis.

You have none beyond over yourself. That's where many men go wrong. Think about it.

You can determine whether or not to risk impregnation, but if you cause a pregnancy, that's the end of your authority, but not your responsibility. It is up to the woman to decide whether to continue being pregnant or not. You get no authority over her either way.

It's really simple. Every person gets to make his or her own health decisions. Nobody else has any right to make those decisions for someone else, nor to demand anything with regard to them. Period.

such a decision? What do you think your "responsibility" should be? I know what it would be if there was a birth and you were the father. But what would your responsibility be with regard to the woman's decision whether or not to carry the child to term?

But we were talking in a more general sense, given the subject of the thread. If you don't want to discuss the issue in general, that's OK, too, but the thread goes on.

There are certain things you can't do with your body, or that we don't allow a doctor to do, or at a minimum would prevent you from doing if we saw you do it.

We wouldn't allow you to jump off a bridge, for example, even though it is your body. Instead, we'd physically prevent you and take you to a mental hospital. We wouldn't allow a doctor to push you off a bridge as a "medical procedure."

So while I do believe in reproductive rights, I don't believe in an unlimited right to do whatever you want with your own body. This is consistent with Roe v. Wade, which is based on the right to privacy, but recognizes a government interest in the third trimester. I don't support any current or proposed restrictions meant to get around Roe v. Wade or create test cases. I don't support the Hyde Amendment.

I MIGHT support certain restrictions consistent with the letter and spirit of Roe v. Wade, but it would depend on what they are. There are none on the table right now, so it's basically moot.

This is the most I've said about abortion in years. Only broke my own rule today in sympathy with Biden and our coincidental discussion here. I don't agree with his position, but I understand his instinct for a middle path. It's just not politically possible these days.

Some states allow voluntary euthanasia, as well, as a choice for their citizens, under certain circumstances.

The number of third-trimester abortions that take place is very low, and almost always in cases where the fetus will not survive after birth, due to defects. It's very, very rarely done as a contraceptive measure. But, when it is needed, it is needed, for many reasons. Absolutely forbidding such abortions is heartless and stupid. There are a number of fatal conditions a fetus might have that might not be detected until late in the term. Such abortions are heart-wrenching for the woman, and are not done except when truly unavoidable, in almost all cases.

The current religious-right-inspired anti-abortion bills that are passing in red states have nothing to do with that at all. They are about making ANY abortion next to impossible. Some even eliminate rape, incest, and the mother's health as reasons.

A couple of states have actually passed laws that give the biological father the same rights a the woman, and the ability to forbid aborting the fetus. Those laws have not withstood court review, but who knows when that will no longer be the case.

I cannot get pregnant. So, I will never have to make such a decision. Only those who are pregnant can make such a decision. It's not up to me in any way, even if I fathered the fetus, which I have never done in my life.

In my opinion, the government has no business whatever with determining what a pregnant woman can or cannot decide about the fetus she is carrying. Period. Currently, Roe puts some limits on what can be controlled, but some individual states have very relaxed limits regarding late-term abortions.

As a man, it is none of my business, frankly. I do not believe it is any of the government's business, either. As long as the fetus is not born, it is the woman's decision. Period. I have no say in it at all, and neither should a bunch of white men in a state legislature.

It would be politically and practically unwise for any Democrat to make any new restrictions or not support the rollback of existing ones. The very minefield Joe Biden stepped into.

It wasn't like this 20 or even 10 years ago, but now it is. My position did not change and apparently, neither has Biden's, but the left has moved on. Which may make Biden and me fossils, but so be it. I'm not running for President so I don't mind being a fossil, but he is and he has to get through the Democratic primary first. I'll be voting in the primary for someone who agrees with you on abortion, and there probably won't be a Democratic candidate in my lifetime who agrees with me.

And you're willing to put restrictions on it.

Keep digging if you want.

So women's choices are fine with you in theory, but when a real life woman chooses certain things in private, you have a problem with what she did. You also have a problem with what an actual man does in relation to what an actual woman does.

"It's alright honey, it's your choice, and me, I'm a man, so I don't give a shit what you do." Is that how you think these go? Is that how you treat the women in your life? You can do that if you want to, that's your choice too, but I don't know any women who want that. Doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't know any. Maybe they just don't want to know me either.

Coincidentally, some women now seem to have a problem with Joe Biden, whose difficulties today illustrate the problem with this discussion. I will tell you I'm actually further left than he is on abortion. If I'm still digging, he fell in the hole.

I don't know why you are claiming I said the exact opposite of what I did, but I suspect it's to try and turn the tables and distract from the fact that you are open to increasing restrictions on abortion, and I am not.

It's the woman's choice.

Keep digging.

Enphasis on the MIGHT, in case you missed it, and I'll repeat it so it's not hidden. I MIGHT be open to restrictions in some cases. Clear?

I hold this position, in part (as in not completely, but only in part) due to my personal experience with actual people with actual uteruses. Not 4 billion other uteruses, who somehow have a say in my personal affairs and opinions, but an individual in my own life who has a uterus, said something was my business and I agreed. In her own life. Imagine that. Without consulting with NARAL.

And also as a consequence of my personal experience, any man, regardless of his stance on abortion who thinks this issue does not affect his life either has never been there or is completely unfeeling.

Likewise, any woman who thinks having a uterus gives her some special insight into what other women think about their own uteruses is totally clueless.

Which is why there are men such as yourself who support women's rights, and women such as Phyllis Schafly who did not. Because women's rights are not just for women, they are also for men who care about women. Actual women, that is. Not political cardboard cutouts.

But bad that you're still willing to put more barriers in the way of a woman's ability to choose.

Keep digging if you wish.

"I don't know what she means by "more restrictions."
And because I might refuse to rule out such a thing until I get more details, maybe I'm not a progressive either. "

I am not sure what you think the practical difference between that and "MIGHT consider," but I promise you the only intended difference is emphasis, and I hoped, clarity. Perhaps if you told me what you thought was the difference, I might be able to explain it better.

I recognized you wouldn't agree and I am out of step with the progressive movement on this.

I am not sure what hole you think I'm digging here, but whatever. Maybe you think I need the lurkers here to agree with me? I don't. It wouldn't be the first time I was the only person in the room to hold a position, and it won't be the last.

Do you think my position, cruel, arrogant, misogynistic or extreme? You are free to think that. Labels don't bother me. They are useful, but they are just labels.

For me, it really just comes down to agreeing with Roe v. Wade, which theoretically allowed some restrictions, but disagreeing with every right wing restriction used to chip away at Roe.

Roe v. Wade based itself in the right to privacy. I agree with that and I am sure you do to. But progressives have gone beyond that into the "unlimited right to bodily autonomy." I'm not going there because I don't believe in ANY unlimited rights (i. e. all rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions, TBD case by case).

l also don't believe bodily autonomy trumps all other considerations, which is why I believe in forced vaccinations.

I also don't believe you need to have a uterus to have an opinion on this, just I don't need to have a cervix to have an opinion on PAP smears. I can't think of a single other case where anatomy dictates the right to have an opinion.
I actually label that sexist, since it implies that women SHOULD think their anatomy controls their decisions and there is something wrong with them if they don't. It's also very unrealistic, as the existence of anti-choice women will attest. The left finds such women confusing, but I don't. That's because it's obvious that anatomy doesn't dictate opinion.

If you have some substantive objection to all this, I'd like to hear it. If you think I'm digging some kind of hole, maybe you can explain that? If it's just that I'm standing out here by myself, with an unusual opinion formerly shared by a presidential candidate and a dead woman, that's no big deal to me. I've got plenty of unusual opinions. It's a consequence of thinking for yourself and not with the herd.

And if you think I've changed my opinion or am retreating from it, I promise you I am not. I'll even take responsibility for failing to communicate my position accurately and answer any questions you may have to clarify further. If for some reason, I change my mind during this discussion, I'll say so in plain language, not by implication and not when you say I've "retreated."

That's good, though. It's good thing to be ashamed of the position that you are willing to put more restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

Keep digging.

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 10:57 AM - Edit history (2)

The first sentence of post 85 is a quote from an earlier post, which was how I stated my oiginal opinion. The title of 85 is an intro to that. The whole point of post 85 is that I AM NOT changing my opinion, and I take responsibility for any impression you may have that I was, due to my own limited communication abilities.

I am not ashamed. I just don't believe in arguing with my political allies on hot button issues, and it's whole different discussion when arguing with the right.

I don't come to DU for political argument, I have other places on the internet for that, places where there is much more diversity of opinion.

I do make exceptions on DU from time to time, as I did right now. If I were REALLY ashamed, I would have said nothing, and you'd never know the difference.

But what's the point? I think we are having a discussion and you just keep saying I am digging a hole. If that's all you have to add to the discussion, then have it your way. I'm working on a construction site and you are the guy standing around doing nothing

We've established that you are not opposed to increasing restrictions on a woman's right to choose abortion. So what are you still going on about? The hole you are digging is a metaphor for the amount of work you are doing trying to pretend like what you believe isn't really a big deal. But the more you dig, the more of a big deal you are confirming it to be, otherwise you'd be content to let this rest.

How much more do you want to type to try and convince a site full of people who are in favor of abortion rights that adding some more restrictions to those rights might be A-OK? That's what I mean by telling you to keep digging.

So I continued, thinking you were misunderstanding something and/or wanted to continue discussion. Furthermore you kept saying I was changing my tune, while I was telling you I wasn't. My bad.

"Not a big deal." -- Whatever. That's a matter of opinion. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was just having a discussion. I didn't know you prefer repetitive cliches.

I expressed extreme disappointment that you are open to further restricting a woman's right to choose abortion.

You've done nothing but insist, more and more defiantly, that despite you being a man, your opinion is important when it comes to a woman's own bodily autonomy.

Thus, why I was happy to allow you to keep digging.

Are you done yet? Or do you want to keep going?

But you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in mischaracterizing my opinion and scoring points. You did get it partially right, so that counts for something. You also got it partially wrong and you seem to like it that way. I guess it makes you feel better about yourself to listen to a misogynistic fascist like me. It really doesn't get any worse than that, so you should feel great about yourself now.

Keep digging.

You are willing to add more restrictions on a woman's right to choose abortion. True or false? I've got my shovel to help you with your hole.

I want to roll back all or almost all. If we are successful in that, I might be willing to consider restrictions that don't violate the letter or spirit of Roe v. Wade, on a case by case basis. There's a nuance there that you missed. You added the word "more" which I never said. I didn't use any synonyms for "more" either.

You also missed the nuance of "might consider" despite my emphasis on it, as in I am not actually considering any restrictions at this time, but if someone had a proposal I might talk to them about it. Rachel Held-Evans, I guessed, might(again, the word is "might." It means here that I don't know if she did or didn't) have had something I thought worth talking about, but she is dead and I can't find any further details.

You said NOTHING about removing all "or almost all" current restrictions in #41.

You said NOTHING about that in #43.

You said NOTHING about that #64, #67, #69, etc., etc., etc.

It appears to me you've tried to create yourself an "out," but you changed your position by adding some new stipulation.

Nice hole you've got there.

I made a mistake. I see I didn't make myself clear as to what I thought she was trying to say vs. what I thought. I didn't realize that mistake started in post 41 so I didn't fix it.

I still want to know what she really meant. I still take a position not in sync with most progressives. You probably still won't agree with it. But I don't want to add more restrictions to the present ones. Thanks for letting me clarify that.

If you accept this admission of a mistake and you are curious about my position, we could keep talking, but we'd would have to start over.

If none of that matters to you, and you just to watch people dig holes, well then you missed your calling as a construction supervisor.

You've already said enough.

You want a civil war? Just let the Democrats be overrun by the religious left. Then we'll see a sunni/shiite divide here in America.

Religious groups are free to organize the way they want, collect funds, advocate for their beliefs and run candidates for political office. Don't vote for them if you don't like them, but are you really going to let a RWNJ win an election because the Democratic candidate mentions God too much?

It won't happen overnight, hopefully never, but having the top officials and office holders of the Democratic Party inserting religion into the process is frightening.

Withholding funds from candidates who do not pass a religious litmus test would be one such calamity. I'm sure you could think of more reasons why not to let it happen.

Even if that means some RWNJ will defeat an otherwise perfectly good progressive Democrat? Yeah, that will show those horrible people we won't be pushed around by the religious left.

You need to be more specific with your hypotheticals. No, I will not vote for someone who puts God before country.

I live in CA. I don't see any candidates like that in my area. I am concerned about the rest of the country. I don't want to see the rise of religious influence anywhere, especially in politics.

This whole issue seems to have popped up because Buttigieg call Pence a hypocrite for being a bad Christian. Also he said his marriage brought him closer to God. So you wouldn't vote for him?

But I wish he would shut up with the religious talk. If he wants to be a priest, fine. If he wants to be president, leave religion at home.

than will be turned off by it. I am indifferent myself, but I like that he battles the religious right on their own turf. It takes guts and it gets attention.

We are the single largest block in that graph, but our views on religion are at best an afterthought as candidates outdo each other trying to be all godded up.

You are a none, so organize the nones. I've always heard they have nothing in common to organize around, but what do I know?

Meanwhile, religious leftists will organize on their own. If nobody shows up, that's their problem.

Ok then, carry on. The nones are winning.

At least that's what it seems we are being told, despite being the largest group in the progressive coalition.

Religious privilege is ingrained in many.

I'll cut you some slack since your account says you've only been here a couple of years.

It has been a constant theme in this group over the years that the non-religious on the left need to silence their objections to religious dogma and motivations lest we "scare away" Christians who would otherwise vote for Democrats, if not for the words of anonymous atheists on a random Internet message board.

I understand there were a number of religious posters who got into into pitched battles with atheists. That all happened before I started posting here. I have no interest in reading old threads so I'll just take your word that they said that.

You don't need to silence yourself here. It doesn't matter what we say here. The Internet is a strange place where you can shout and scream about anything but nobody hears you because 1 billion other people are screaming about something else.

was sold to evangelicals. Nobody else could afford such a mansion near downtown Ottawa. They have occassional events there. But are quiet 97% of the time. I think religious right is floating in money. Where religious left put their money towards poverty programs. Religious right towards spreading their message and getting more converts to voting republican I'm sure for some of them in an earnest attempt to stop abortions. But they don't seem to care that good birth control stops more abortions than anything else and republicans are against good birth control planning and funding.

The religious right has more money because it has more people than can fit in its megachurches and the religious left can barely fill a Volkswagen minibus.

I understand the long-term demographics are upsetting for you.

or just non-believers?

Does it make you feel better?

I do. But that does not make the narrative correct.

Please explain.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't tell black Democrats to allow the party to cater to white Americans, right?

Or gay Democrats to allow the party to cater to straight Americans?

So why are you just peachy with stomping on a religious minority? Particularly one that's on a remarkable growth pattern?

Does it fill a need?

Your words are there for all to read.

Why don't you start acting in a way that would make Jesus proud, and welcome non-believers into the party?

I understand.

It won't work. It never has.

Are you showing everyone what a Christian looks like, guillaumeb?

to support your own needs.

I understand.

You don't like that, and so you continue to attack and belittle me.

Apparently you DO think that's how Jesus wants you to act. I wonder how many people you're scaring out of the party with your behavior?

Thus the need to resort to straw man and other tactics. Including your responses here. Creating enemies and demonizing opponents rarely builds unity.

Explain exactly how I'm wrong.

Clarify whether you think non-believers in the Democratic coalition need to allow Christians to dominate the party. Explain how you think non-believers should be welcomed into the coalition.

You are accusing me of something. Prove the charge.

Bet you won't, though, because you're only about hatred and attacking.

You made an accusation. And you do it constantly.

And that is one reason that people comment on the toxicity of the supposed dialogue in this Group.

Have fun with your straw.

And no, I do not expect any proof of what you claimed that I said.

It's very telling that you won't.

For those that still choose to identify with a particular religion, all the other demographics like church attendance and importance of faith are also trending down.

Lot's of people in Europe identify with a particular religion. Much fewer subscribe to the dogma and doctrine. Eventually the US will be the same. At some point religion will be limited to a small collection of zealots standing on the corner with a bullhorn.

to those voters.

But I accept that you believe this to be true.