The Advent of Christian Fundamentalism: Will America Remain a True Democracy? (1 Viewer)

[liberateamerica]

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power. The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic. What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?

 

[Morrow]

Our laws will reflect those social perceptions our cultures has imbedded in it. Many of those are Roman, and therefore Christian, so whether we want it or not, a lot of our laws are Christian in their nature and will continue to be so. I don't beleive that this gay marriage issue, evolution, or abortion are really Christian issues, they are political issues that abuse Christians and their ideals.

We have other principals to which compare laws, our basic rights, and the ideals of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some Christian values are also more universal, and we can all agree that they should reflect in our society, and when necessary our laws. Those are the value of tolerance, forgiveness, humility and compassion.

People aren’t what we think we are. We are just a part of the greater Universe, and live by those laws, and the laws which govern our perceptions of free will and the self. We still live more inside those rules than outside them.

 

[Jerry]

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power. The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic. What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?

Now that's interesting......"free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired"....you see homosexuality as a choice, aye.....establishing a lifestyle or sexual preference as a choice undermines the GM movement, because in order to claim that the denying of same-sex marriage infringes on a 'fundamental right', you must show hat what you are being discriminated for is beyond your control; like race.

That's why the legal argument supporting GM has adjusted toward gender and away from sexual orientation.

As for these religious political groups, you haven’t provided anything to comment on.

 

[Morrow]

Now that's interesting......"free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired"....you see homosexuality as a choice, aye.....establishing a lifestyle or sexual preference as a choice undermines the GM movement, because in order to claim that the denying of same-sex marriage infringes on a 'fundamental right', you must show hat what you are being discriminated for is beyond your control; like race.

That's why the legal argument supporting GM has adjusted toward gender and away from sexual orientation.

As for these religious political groups, you haven’t provided anything to comment on.

I disagree, even if homosexuality were a choice, and it is a choice to live out ones natures, including heterosexuality, that doesn’t preclude it being a right.

I take a libertarian view of personal choices, if it doesn’t directly deprive another of one of their rights, then no one has should restrict that right. Regardless of any other circumstance.

I do agree that homosexaulity not being a choice is a major choice the gay-rights group uses, but isn't the foundation.

 

[Hatuey]

I disagree, even if homosexuality were a choice, and it is a choice to live out ones natures, including heterosexuality, that doesn’t preclude it being a right.

I take a libertarian view of personal choices, if it doesn’t directly deprive another of one of their rights, then no one has should restrict that right. Regardless of any other circumstance.

I do agree that homosexaulity not being a choice is a major choice the gay-rights group uses, but isn't the foundation.

You dont chose to be gay. You're born that way. Genetics. It's like not liking olives. You dont chose not to like them. You're just born that way.

 

[Jerry]

I disagree, even if homosexuality were a choice, and it is a choice to live out ones natures, including heterosexuality, that doesn’t preclude it being a right.

I take a libertarian view of personal choices, if it doesn’t directly deprive another of one of their rights, then no one has should restrict that right. Regardless of any other circumstance.

I do agree that homosexaulity not being a choice is a major choice the gay-rights group uses, but isn't the foundation.

I wasn't speaking of right or wrong, but of how to win the argument.

 

[1069]

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power. The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic. What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?

America will answer you on Tuesday at the polls.

 

[Jerry]

You dont chose to be gay. You're born that way. Genetics. It's like not liking olives. You dont chose not to like them. You're just born that way.

...I've got this on speed dial.....

"Of course, I'm that most awful of perverts. I chose, I gleefully admit that I was heterosexual until I met the right man and chose to indulge in my homoerotic potential. Take that!"
—Elf Sternberg, posting on the talk.politics.misc newsgroup, April 18, 1993

"I guess I never felt that it wasn't a choice. It was an option, I guess."
—a queer woman, quoted in Vera Whisman's Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, 1996

"[O]ne of my goals in the women's studies classroom was to convert someone to lesbianism in the course of the year—and I was always successful at this, just by talking about how sexuality is a construction and heterosexuality an institution and by simply posing the question, by asking my students: How do you identify yourself sexually? And if they would respond: I'm heterosexual, then I would ask: How do you know? How can you be so sure? thus provoking them to question their sexuality in certain fundamental ways. Result? Conversions right and left."
—Catherine A. F. MacGillivray, in dialogue with Calvin Thomas, from Straight With a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, edited by Calvin Thomas, p. 262, 2000

"The male party line concerning Lesbians is that women become Lesbians out of reaction to men. This is a pathetic illustration of the male ego's inflated proportions. I became a Lesbian because of women, because women are beautiful, strong, and compassionate."
—Rita Mae Brown

"Although I have been married and have two sons, I was a late bloomer and decided in my late 20s or early 30s that being a lesbian was OK and that, for me, it is a choice. "
—Reader Response to "Why Are We Gay?" survey conducted by The Advocate, July 2001

 

[Hatuey]

...I've got this on speed dial.....

"Of course, I'm that most awful of perverts. I chose, I gleefully admit that I was heterosexual until I met the right man and chose to indulge in my homoerotic potential. Take that!"
—Elf Sternberg, posting on the talk.politics.misc newsgroup, April 18, 1993

"I guess I never felt that it wasn't a choice. It was an option, I guess."
—a queer woman, quoted in Vera Whisman's Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, 1996

"[O]ne of my goals in the women's studies classroom was to convert someone to lesbianism in the course of the year—and I was always successful at this, just by talking about how sexuality is a construction and heterosexuality an institution and by simply posing the question, by asking my students: How do you identify yourself sexually? And if they would respond: I'm heterosexual, then I would ask: How do you know? How can you be so sure? thus provoking them to question their sexuality in certain fundamental ways. Result? Conversions right and left."
—Catherine A. F. MacGillivray, in dialogue with Calvin Thomas, from Straight With a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, edited by Calvin Thomas, p. 262, 2000

"The male party line concerning Lesbians is that women become Lesbians out of reaction to men. This is a pathetic illustration of the male ego's inflated proportions. I became a Lesbian because of women, because women are beautiful, strong, and compassionate."
—Rita Mae Brown

"Although I have been married and have two sons, I was a late bloomer and decided in my late 20s or early 30s that being a lesbian was OK and that, for me, it is a choice. "
—Reader Response to "Why Are We Gay?" survey conducted by The Advocate, July 2001

You gave me examples of people who hid their sexuality for years and then finally realized they were gay, college kids(who as we all know experiment like hippies in the 60s) and 2 people who had the potential to go either way(it's called bisexuality). Oh Ok I see it your way now.

Some recent studies have tied a correlation between the number of older brothers a man has and his likelihood of being homosexual. Blanchard and Klassen (1997) [6] reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%. This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation” (Blanchard, 1997)[7]. To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus (Blanchard and Klassen, 1997). Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are “almost certainly” involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates (Blanchard and Klassen, 1997)[8]. It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and ‘remember’. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation. This is now known as the fraternal birth order effect. In a study comparing the effects of being raised with older "brothers" and having biological older brothers, published July 26, 2006 in PNAS, Bogaert found that there was a link to homosexuality only if the older brothers were biologically related and even when they were not raised together.[9] Interestingly, this relation seems to hold only for right-handed males.[10] There has been no observable equivalent for women.

Prenatal hormonal theory
Main article: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
The neurobiology of the masculinization of the brain is fairly well understood. Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalysed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[2] It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process.[3] In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males. (See the main article for further details.)

I go with science.

 

[TurtleDude]

the creeping crud of welfare socialism and net tax consumers voting themselves the wealth of net tax payers is what is going to destroy this nation not the bible thumpers.

 

[Jerry]

You gave me examples of people who hid their sexuality for years and then finally realized they were gay, college kids(who as we all know experiment like hippies in the 60s) and 2 people who had the potential to go either way(it's called bisexuality). Oh Ok I see it your way now.

That's not what I gave at all.

I go with science.

Quoting studies without linking the work is a no no. At least quote the literary source so the casual reader can google it.

Hormone studies don't back up claims of genetics, you need to quote a genetic study. No hormones, not neurology, no twin studies...quote genetics.

Not that I refute that homosexuality is a born/un chosen trait. I just also say that homosexual *behavior and *preferences are not solely a 'born that way' thing.

Gender, however, is not chosen, and so it makes for a much stronger case.

***
Now I am obliged to fire back, in a sporting nature of coarse.

"Rejecting the Gay Brain (and Choosing Homosexuality)" by queer writer Joe Sartelle, from Bad Subjects, No. 14, May 1994. "I think that the popularity of biological accounts of homosexual desire among gay people has to be understood as a way of coping with deeply-rooted homophobia. What else can it be when we defend ourselves by saying things like, "Do you think anybody would choose to be this way?" This is a defensive position, one that implicitly accepts that there is something wrong with homosexuality, that it is indeed an abnormality which demands to be explained."

"No Easy Link Between Genes, Behavior: DNA Studies Dash Quest for Easy Answers. Genome's Link to Behavior Hard to Prove" by Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 13, 2001. More than 90% of the human genome has been sequenced by the International Human Genome Project, yet no "gay gene" has been found. Why might that be?

"In Search of the 'Gay Gene'" by Jack Lucentini, The Washington Post, p. A15, February 19, 2001. Here's a pro-"gay gene" article with a twist: it argues that the "gay gene" (or rather, the biological capacity for same-sex attraction) exists in most or all human beings instead of just the minority who consider themselves "gay."

Sooooo.....if you can name the gay gene, and link the source this time, your next task will be to source a study showing that said "gay gene" is either inactive or not present in heterosexuals.

 

[alienken]

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power. The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic. What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?

There are so many things that are false, I'll just take them one at a time. 1). Christians are not anti-gay.We are commanded by Jesus Himself to love one another. We hate the sin not the sinner. 2).More Christians support Israel and the Jewish people than not. 3). This is still the America of free religion. You can't force people to be Christian, it just doesn't work that way.If it's not in your heart, your not there. It's the Muslims that are intolerant, some will kill you if they think you are sinning. 4).Your right about one thing..anti-abortion. We see the fetus as a baby and the abortion as killing a baby which is wrong.

 

[1069]

Why will people persist in presenting anecdotal evidence as if it were empirical evidence, especially around these social/morality issues?
Look friends:

Empirical Evidence- Data collected through scientifically-based research in established fields such as psychology, sociology, economics, and neuroscience, which can be verified or disproven.

This is really the only sort of evidence that means anything in sociological debate.
"My aunt Fran's sister's friend's daughter had an abortion and regretted it all her life" or "Fred T. from Bob Jones University says he chose to be gay and is now actively recruiting others to his lifestyle" are just so many meaningless words, really. They add nothing; they aren't remotely credible.
And yet it's all I ever really hear, around these issues.

 

[Navy Pride]

We are a Republic........

 

[Hatuey]

That's not what I gave at all.


Quoting studies without linking the work is a no no. At least quote the literary source so the casual reader can google it.

Hormone studies don't back up claims of genetics, you need to quote a genetic study. No hormones, not neurology, no twin studies...quote genetics.

Not that I refute that homosexuality is a born/un chosen trait. I just also say that homosexual *behavior and *preferences are not solely a 'born that way' thing.

Gender, however, is not chosen, and so it makes for a much stronger case.

***
Now I am obliged to fire back, in a sporting nature of coarse.

"Rejecting the Gay Brain (and Choosing Homosexuality)" by queer writer Joe Sartelle, from Bad Subjects, No. 14, May 1994. "I think that the popularity of biological accounts of homosexual desire among gay people has to be understood as a way of coping with deeply-rooted homophobia. What else can it be when we defend ourselves by saying things like, "Do you think anybody would choose to be this way?" This is a defensive position, one that implicitly accepts that there is something wrong with homosexuality, that it is indeed an abnormality which demands to be explained."

"No Easy Link Between Genes, Behavior: DNA Studies Dash Quest for Easy Answers. Genome's Link to Behavior Hard to Prove" by Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 13, 2001. More than 90% of the human genome has been sequenced by the International Human Genome Project, yet no "gay gene" has been found. Why might that be?

"In Search of the 'Gay Gene'" by Jack Lucentini, The Washington Post, p. A15, February 19, 2001. Here's a pro-"gay gene" article with a twist: it argues that the "gay gene" (or rather, the biological capacity for same-sex attraction) exists in most or all human beings instead of just the minority who consider themselves "gay."

Sooooo.....if you can name the gay gene, and link the source this time, your next task will be to source a study showing that said "gay gene" is either inactive or not present in heterosexuals.

http://home.pacbell.net/doninla/homogene.htm

From my perspective, the best news to come out of this research is that male homosexuality is, or at least can be, genetically determined. It has yet to be shown that everyone who receives these so-called gay genes will be gay, but the research strongly suggests this correlation. Being gay is not a matter of choice any more than eye color or handedness is chosen. We are apparently "hardwired" from birth to be gay. Other studies also show genetic or biochemical differences in gay males from their straight brothers. Several years ago, a region of the brain, the interstitial nucleus of the hypothalamus, was shown to be smaller in gay men than in straight men. In fact, its size in gay men closely resembled its size in straight females (i.e., individuals with an attraction for males). This region of the brain is involved in sexual responses and sexual development. For example, in animals, an alteration of this region of the brain (which can be hormonally altered) can change the animal into a homosexual animal. While these studies on brain structures are not as conclusive as the X chromosome research, they do show a physical difference between gay and straight men. While these brain differences could be due to postnatal rearing or diseases, such as AIDS, there is no biological reason to suspect such. They are more likely to be due to hormonal interactions in the fetus during development.

There is probably not just one developmental or genetic pathway to produce a homosexual person. However, there is no significant evidence for the involvement of causal factors acting during childhood; the pattern seems to be firmly established before the onset of adolescence. Homosexuality is better understood as a phenomenon of biology rather than being acquired in the schoolyard, through childhood rearing or a matter of choice. To be or not to be gay is not the question. It is not learned or chosen, it is not a choice, it just is.

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/533470.html

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm

Saying that no gay gene has been found isnt an excuse to say that being gay is choise. In genetics some genes work together others dont. One gene might have an effect in combination with another. - Hatuey

Today, due to scientific advances, we have a better understanding of homosexuality. Because of new insight into the genes that determine sexual orientation some believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait. A National Cancer Institute researcher reported that many homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influences their sexual orientation (Hamer 1). In men, the X chromosome pairs with the Y chromosome to form the so-called sex chromosomes, the final set of twenty- three pairs of chromosomes found in all the cells of the human body (Angier 2). A man=s X chromosome is inherited from the mother, who bestows on her son a reshuffled version of one of her two copies of the X chromosome (2). It is this X chromosome, passed from the mother, that is believed to influence sexual orientation (2). An experiment conducted with fruit flies to determine if the manipulation of genes can affect sexual orientation found that the introduction of a certain gene caused flies to exhibit homosexual behaviors (Vocca 1). The experiment, conducted by biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, demonstrated how the presence of specific genes could affect sexual orientation (1).

Dr. Simon LeVay, a prominent neurologist, believes that a difference in the structure of the brain may have something to do with sexual orientation. The anterior hypothalmus of the brain participates in the regulation of the male-typical sexual behavior (LeVay 1). The volumes of four cell groups in this region were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, heterosexual men, and homosexual men (1). The study was to determine the levels of Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalmus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4(1). The study found no differences between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4 (1). The levels of INAH 3 however, were more than twice as high in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men (1). The brain tissue used in the study was obtained from forty- one subjects during routine autopsies of persons who died at seven metropolitan hospitals in New York and California (1). Nineteen subjects were homosexual men. Sixteen subjects were heterosexual men (1). Six of the subjects were heterosexual women, and zero were homosexual women. The research reported that there were definite biological differences in the structure of the brain between homosexual men and heterosexual men.

 

[Jerry]

http://home.pacbell.net/doninla/homogene.htm

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/533470.html

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm

Saying that no gay gene has been found isnt an excuse to say that being gay is choise. In genetics some genes work together others dont. One gene might have an effect in combination with another. - Hatuey

"Sexual Orientation: Binaries and Definition Problems" by Pierre Tremblay and Richard Ramsay, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, from their collaborative work The Social Construction of Male Homosexuality and Related Suicide Problems: Research Proposals for the Twenty-First Century, 2000.

"How Do You Define 'Sexual Orientation'?" by Randall L. Sell, excerpted from his article "Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation: A Review," Archives of Sexual Behavior,Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 643-658, December 1997.

"Exploding the Gene Myth: A Conversation with Ruth Hubbard" by Frank Aqueno of QueerByChoice, 1997. Ruth Hubbard of the Council for Responsible Genetics discusses the "gay gene" theory with Frank Aqueno of QueerByChoice and John Lawson of Tulane University, 1997.




I don't make the statement that all homosexuality is a choice. In fact I have said that homosexuality is, in a number of homosexual people, a born orientation.

However I still hear the folks who say that they, as heterosexuals, choose to be homosexual. Like PFLAG, for example.

In light of the lack of information identifying a sexual orientation as being only a genetically dictated thing, I have no reason to doubt those who say they chose to be gay.

Let us assume for a moment that such genetic information was known so as to argue your side to conclusion, it still makes for the weaker legal argument as there is no where near the amount of established legal tradition of protecting sexual orientation as there is gender.

 

[dragonslayer]

I disagree, even if homosexuality were a choice, and it is a choice to live out ones natures, including heterosexuality, that doesn’t preclude it being a right.

I take a libertarian view of personal choices, if it doesn’t directly deprive another of one of their rights, then no one has should restrict that right. Regardless of any other circumstance.

I do agree that homosexaulity not being a choice is a major choice the gay-rights group uses, but isn't the foundation.

Gays are just people who breath, poop, eat, buy cars and homes etc like everyone else.

where I live the only Gays I know are a couple of elderly women. they have been together for years. they are pleasant folks and they are as christian as Bush. I actually admire them, with the extremely high divorce rate, among my fellow heteros. It is good to see people staying together. There are some couples at church that have been together over 50 years. That is good to see too.

I am 67 and I am divorced. I would not like to see fundamentalist christians running the country, and I am a devout Christian. It would cease to be the United States of America, and our freedoms especially the freedom of speech the freedom of religion, would be in great danger. We might have fundamentalist run death camps like the ones that the government has been creating.

 

[doughgirl]

LiberateAmerica said, “What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?”

Woman can get abortions what are you talking about? And you can worship your coffee table it you want to. You have always been able to worship what you wanted in America, even though we were founded on Judea Christian principles. The humanist is the one who seeks to destroy religious freedom not the Christian. They want to silence Christians. They want to have the Bible categorized as hate literature and have it banned. They want to force churches to ordain people agaisnt the churches beliefs.They want to make it illegal for all religious institutions to speak out on homosexuality. They are the ones who want to silence Christianity. They are the ones who are not for freedom of expression, especially if the expression is religious in nature.

 

[Spencer Collins]

This is a Democracy and Christian values held by Christian voters will be transmitted via the ballot on election day.The same is true of secular values and opinions. I along with most of my fellow Christians do not want a theocracy but some would welcome it. Hopefully the Constitution will guard against abuses by the Christian and Secular influences.It is absurd to believe that Christians and Seculars will leave their personal beliefs outside the voting booth. Yes..I believe America will remain a true democracy as long as we are true in upholding the constitution and our judges remain interpreters as opposed to judicial activists.

 

[alienken]

Woman can get abortions what are you talking about? And you can worship your coffee table it you want to. You have always been able to worship what you wanted in America, even though we were founded on Judea Christian principles. The humanist is the one who seeks to destroy religious freedom not the Christian. They want to silence Christians. They want to have the Bible categorized as hate literature and have it banned. They want to force churches to ordain people agaisnt the churches beliefs.They want to make it illegal for all religious institutions to speak out on homosexuality. They are the ones who want to silence Christianity. They are the ones who are not for freedom of expression, especially if the expression is religious in nature.

I have noticed that what the Lib/Dems. accuse others of is what they are guilty of themselves.I'm talking about the leaders but the followers repeat it without questioning them.

 

[earthworm]

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power. The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic.I do NOT embrace the slaughter of babies - and that is what legal abortion is !
Anti-gay ? I do not care for that term, these people are anything but "gay"..There would be no problem if the homosexuals would just return to the closet where they belong.
BUT ! Don't ask - dont't tell is the best way to go..
IMO, a man being anti-Jewish has nothing to to with being conservative-Republication.. What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?When did all of this not exist? We probably do set the world standard for religious freedom and tolerance, even with the damned Muslims..

Of course not all is right in our nation; ridding ourselves of intolerance is a monumental task, which will take hundreds of years...

 

[talloulou]

First off we are not now and never have been a "true democracy."

Unfortunately, it is clear that logic, science, and knowledge are going out the window with the GOP and George "Dubya" in power.

I think that statement is a little overboard. There are good solid reasons to question stem cell research. And as far as global warming goes there are many still unknown factors regarding how much we have caused vs the cyclical nature of the universe as well as how much we could change anything. You can be very pro-environment and not agree with every single environmentalist on every single issue. In some instances you can do more harm than good.

The Christian Coalition and many other religious/political groups on the Republicans' side are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and some members are anti-Semitic.

I personally hear anti-semitic statements from the far out left all the time. Mel Gibson no more represents the right than kidrocks represents the left.
As far as homosexuality goes it has never been more acceptable than it is today. And while there is still room to grow in terms of equality I would much rather be a homosexual today than at any other time in our history. As far as abortion I personally don't like it and it has nothing to do with religion as I'm not religious. But abortion is not going to be outlawed anytime soon. And we now have MAP's being sold over the counter so it has never been easier at anytime in history to take control of ones reproduction.

What happened to the America where people were free to have abortions, free to be Jewish or Muslim or members of any other miniority that doesn't worship Jesus, and free to be whatever sexual orientation they desired?

At what point in US history was abortion more accessible than it is today? At what point were there more options for birth control than there are today? Where in the US are you not free to be Jewish or anything else???

I will agree that Muslims may be experiencing prejudice as I know I myself can't fathom how anyone would currently find that religion attractive but I still think you are free to be Muslim and if anything our countries "political correctness" treats Muslims with more sensitivity than we probably would have at any point in the past given the current circumstances.

 

[liberateamerica]

Woman can get abortions what are you talking about? And you can worship your coffee table it you want to. You have always been able to worship what you wanted in America, even though we were founded on Judea Christian principles. The humanist is the one who seeks to destroy religious freedom not the Christian. They want to silence Christians. They want to have the Bible categorized as hate literature and have it banned. They want to force churches to ordain people agaisnt the churches beliefs.They want to make it illegal for all religious institutions to speak out on homosexuality. They are the ones who want to silence Christianity. They are the ones who are not for freedom of expression, especially if the expression is religious in nature.

I spoke in the incorrect tense. Some of the pro-life Republicans want to eliminate the right to choose.