Dems respect diversity but how deeply?

Dems generally only accept a secular humanist version of every religion. They have a system they use to establish this secular humanist version of the worlds religions.

First, they take the authority to instill morals in the population at a young age away from parents through elected local school boards by giving that authority to a much larger more encompassing public educational system that answers to a National university system.

Then, they take the religious moral authority over the university systems away from orthodox God centered religions and, give it to humanist secular centered (more enlightened) educated versions of said religions.

They do this by, misinterpreting the "separation of church and state clause" from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a baptist church (which is not even written in the constitution) and then, use the misinterpretation of said letter as an excuse for non-elected judges to remove an orthodox "God centered" interpretation of the moral code and give it to a "human secular" version of the moral code.

This then transfers the authority over deciding what the moral code is from God to the elite (liberal professors) in academia who (once again) are appointed and therefore non elected officials.

Unfortunately the type of people that get selected for these type of positions are excellent at communicating because they can really focus on the here and now which is subjective point of view (if it feels good to me it is good). But, God is all encompassing which is objective point of view (it is good only if it fits God's all encompassing eternal plan).

Which means a very narrow, self centered, subjective moral code is being established in our nation by the Dems which, by definition is always less diverse than an all encompassing objective moral code established by God because God can consider what's good for all people over all of time.

And it was done by removing the right to vote over local elected school boards to non elected professors at National universities.

So, The Dems do have one thing right, "It is very important to give people the right to vote. Unfortunately the Dems love to suppress people's right to vote at a local level over moral issues.

Examples of this moral code being established without a vote is revealed as we have recently replaced a God centered definition of the following moral issues: what is a human being
abortion
definition of marriage
who is considered a man and who is a woman
which rights come from the state and which rights are endowed by God
etc . . .

Yet, you do have a problem with the party and candidates supporting a pro-choice position.

Just wanted to point out what you do have a problem with as oppose to what you don't have a problem with.

I've never seen him express any opposition to candidates being pro-choice.

I think he is pro-choice himself.

I am, in fact, pro-choice... If by pro choice you mean a belief that abortion should be legal and easily accessible to women during the first trimester.

I am anti-extremism. I think that much of the rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side is nasty, ideological and often factually incorrect.

I believe that abortion is morally challenging. There is no question that abortion ends a human life. To discount the moral issues is nonsense. To say that being against abortion is "anti-woman" or "anti-healthcare" is ridiculous.

So I believe abortion should be legal and accessible to women. But, I think the ideology around "abortion rights" is extreme and counter-factual. You tell me if my belief is pro-choice or not. I am quite sure the pro-life side won't take me.

This is a good example where I agree with the policy position of the Democratic party, yet am pushed away by the ideological extremism.

The thing is, Max, is you're asking for certain extreme measures to not be extreme any more. There's no half-abortions. There's no middle ground here.

So, when when say, "I am anti-extremism" really doesn't cut it. Yes, you ARE an extremist if you believe in abortion just as much as being extreme when it comes to no abortions at any time under any circumstance.

When you say you will support abortion in such and such case, that's not being a middle ground person. That's only saying you can be extreme when the situation warrants but not in others. Either abortion is murder of a human or it's not, there's no middle ground in which to say it's ok to murder in one circumstance but not in others.

You HAVE to pick a side. That IS the morally challenging part, to be able to reconcile the difference.

Nonsense Neptune. You are taking a complex issue and turning it into a simplistic checkbox. People don't fit into these narrow little ideological boxes. The real world doesn't work that way.

There are a great number of points of view about abortion. Let's just list a few

People can believe...

... that abortion is morally wrong, but still think it should be legal.

...that abortion is not murder, but still think it should be restricted.

... that abortion should be banned, without exception, starting at conception.

... that abortion should be legal, without exception, until birth.

... that abortion should be banned, but there should be exceptions for rape or health of the mother.

... that abortion should be legal until some time has passed (i.e. first trimester) but restricted after.

... that abortion should be legal until some stage of biological development has happened (i.e. brain function).

... that abortion should be legal, but other social policy should be enacted (birth control and sex education) to reduce its incidence.

I am sure there are many more points of view. An political party that with rigid dogma who insists on ideological purity is going to lose voters.

Yes, there are many points of view.

However, there are only two main political parties in the U.S. and a sliver of a third.

It is what it is.

The Democratic party has a choice.

- They can nominate a candidate who says



- The Democrats can nominate a candidate who says



One of these candidates will thrill the Democrat base right out of their silly pink hats. I suspect that you would vote for either of these candidates if they were the Democratic nominee. Many Americans would vote for the second but be put off by the first.

If the Democratic party wants to win the election, they have to nominate a candidate who doesn't drive voters away. We do have a choice. I can choose to vote Republican. I can choose to vote Green. I can choose to not cast a vote in the presidential election. I have lots of choices.

It is stupid for the Democratic party to take the votes of middle Americans for granted. These are the votes that will decide who is in the White House.

As with most Americans, I will vote for the candidate that best aligns with my political, moral and religious views, whether that's a Democrat or a Republican.

What is it with Americans and abortion? It's a non issue over here, nobody pays any attention to the religious weirdos who want to control a woman's body.

Apart from NI of course and they're all ******* mental over there.

Yes Neptune,

And that is why if the Democratic candidate wants to win, she needs to reach out to the widest coalition of voters she can... particularly to speak to the people in the middle.

You deal with your screwed up politics, and we will deal with ours.

Right now, even with Trump, I think England is more politically nuts that the US is.

It's the UK, England is just one part of the country. At least we know our geography. The opinions of someone as profoundly ignorant as yourself aren't really important. For that you would need an education.

You are right. I don't even know what street England is on. I will go google it now.

I do know where France is.

Don't get him started...

It's a damned good question, izzy. One day I'm going to dig in on the history of the anti-abortion movement in the US. Your Northern Ireland example is surely relevant as the Catholic church in the US has been very influential in the movement. Another clear element is the difference between your Anglican church and the American Protestant/Evangelical faith groups. But I really would like to know more about the coordination between Catholic groups and Evangelical groups in America.

The weird thing about NI is it's not the Catholic church opposing it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed in the ROI. It's the unionists, a lot of whom are extremely religious.

I suspect the reason why abortion is fairly non-contentious in Europe is that most European countries allow it on demand during the first trimester only, when the fetus is so small and so totally dependent on its mother's body that it cannot be called a "human being", not anymore than (say) a pimple can be called a "human being".

The real moral issues are all about late term abortion, when the fetus becomes more and more "recognizably human", and increasingly viable ex utero (last trimester). Then you can say that abortion terminates a human life.

That I did not know! Thank you, izzy

It goes back to Elizabeth I, she sent a load of extreme protestant Scots to colonise Ulster.

These are the same sort that sailed in the Mayflower to get away from all the tolerance we were showing Catholics.