Michael Cash wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:14:17 -0500, Kevin Gowen
> <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> brought down from the Mount tablets
> inscribed:
> 
> 
>>Michael Cash wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:16:05 +0900, Raj Feridun
>>><rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp> brought down from the Mount tablets
>>>inscribed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:47:12 +0900, Michael Cash
>>>><mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>They WERE mobilized as never before but it just turned out to be the
>>>>>>Jesus freaks and not the young voters.
>>>>
>>>>>Look, I'm a devout Atheist, and even I can't understand the major
>>>>>problem so many on the left seem to have with Christians going to the
>>>>>polls and voting in accordance with their personal convictions.
>>>>
>>>>>Especially I can't understand the elitist, dismissive, insulting tones
>>>>>in which they so often do it.
>>>>
>>>>>Even more especially I can't understand how they claim to be more
>>>>>tolerant and inclusive than conservatives if *that* is the attitude
>>>>>they take toward a subgroup of the population.
>>>>
>>>>>Even even more more I can't believe it when they say they are for
>>>>>religious freedom.
>>>>
>>>>Allow me to explain then, sir. The Christians for whom my rancor is
>>>>reserved are the proselytizers that seek to make America a fine nation
>>>>of upstanding moral Christian values. They want to "clean up the
>>>>airwaves" and bring prayer back to schools. They have their hooks in
>>>>this "born again" President who's on the God hotline and are actively
>>>>pushing towards their goals. Also chief among their goals of course is
>>>>the end of legal abortions and stem cell research.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see.
>>>
>>>And wanting them to stop doing this doesn't somehow conflict with the
>>>First Amendment?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I am for religious freedom, the key word being FREEDOM. Freedom
>>>>as in everyone being free to believe what they like and pray to whom
>>>>they like and not even a scintilla of a HINT of a merger of religion
>>>>and state.
>>>
>>>
>>>But voting in accordance with one's beliefs and exercising the duties
>>>of a public office in accordance with one's belief is not the same as
>>>merging religion and state.
>>
>>Indeed. During the 2nd debate, there was a question on abortion. Kerry 
>>said that he believes life to begin at conception but that he could not 
>>"legislate" a pro-life bill (given the First Amendment ban on 
>>establishing religion) because his belief was a Catholic teaching. Then 
>>he cited other aspects of his faith, touching on the environment, 
>>equality and justice, that he said *would* shape his policies.
> 
> 
> I missed that. I tried to listen, but got sick of listening to his
> smarmy ass after about 5 or 10 minutes and turned the radio off. I had
> already voted prior to the first debate anyway.
> 
> So.....How 'bout that Kerry, huh? Hell of a debater, according to all
> accounts. I hear he won all three. Ain't that somethin'?

The abortion question was a real loser for Kerry. He really squirmed 
trying to justify support for partial-birth abortion and opposition to 
parental notification.

-- 
Kevin
"This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National 
Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST