On the pro-choice issue: my wife has an interesting take on abortion rights.  When I was telling her the story (I commented on at RK) about how female ducks were evolving to avoid penetration by male ducks they didn't want fathering their children, she pointed out that some male humans are upset because that's what female humans are now able to do.  Human beings evolve/adapt less physically, and more through use of tools, and use of laws.  Contraception and abortion have developed, in part, as ways for women to avoid bearing children sired by undesirable males.  If you contrast, say, women's place in the Old Testament (recall that Lot was regarded as favored but he was willing to allow his daughters to be raped) with modern times, women are treated a whole lot better than before.  Like you, we're pro-life but understand it's a morally gray area and don't believe government should control people's own bodies.  But my wife thinks some males get hot over the issue because they don't like being told the female has control.

RE: "I looked at my wife, begging her to save me from this discussion" . . . I know it was a serious moment for you, but I'm just laughing because we've all been there.  Actually, I've found the best thing is to be candid and try to generate mutual respect.  My mother-in-law and I have developed a very good mutual self-respect.  And like a lot of traditional mothers, she's very pro women's rights because she sees through all the b.s. on this issue generated by male conservatives.  And she's the one who voted for Bush in 2000 but now regards him as evil.

I have spent a long times looking for the right church and religion.  I think I'm almost at the end of my spiritual journey, but my advice is -- stay on it and ENJOY the journey.  I'm constantly surprised about what I learn from others' views, and from reading religious history.  And I can make a pretty good case for God wanting us to use our minds and trying to achieve higher spiritual truths rather than accepting some formula in an unquestioning way.

Since you were away, you may have missed my message -- Montoya wine is sold only at Total Wine, like the one in Landmark.

It is inevitable. If you believe that you are right, and you believe that you must live what you have been taught, then you  transform that belief into political action.

The calls of many of us liberals for secular lives annoys many religious people. They feel that it is requesting that they should give up their beliefs in the world. They don't want to be private Christians.

I must admit that they do have a point there. If they wish to live their beliefs, we should let them do so within the framework of tolerance. This means that we respect their right to act politically moved by their religious beliefs while at the same time we make it clear to them that they cannot impose  their beliefs on others.

And we shouldn't be afraid to communicate through religion with them. Those of us who are Christian can use Christianity as a way to reach them.

Abortion has been a great wedge issue to bring people who have traditionally been liberals to vote Republican. It upsets believers enough so that they will ignore many other important related issues, such as child health care, economic fairness, etc.

I have had good results by telling conservative Christians that it is cruel to have adoption as the only alternative to abortion because it takes away babies from mothers. It destroys the foundation of the family. It diminishes the role of the natural mother in the child's life. If the mother wants to put their child for adoption, it is her choice, but this shouldn't be the only choice. Making this the only choice is cruel and anti-family.

More pro-life, pro-mother, and pro-family is to protect families economically so that they don't have to give up their children. Or provide enough affordable day care for young women so that they can still get an education and have a career to support their child.

I am pro-choice for pragmatic reasons: abortions will happen whether they are legal or not, and having them legal protects the health of women. I rather reduce the number of abortions through preventing pregnancies or by actually giving realistic choices to pregnant women to encourage them to have the child.

For 15 years I was a Unitarian and felt out of place the entire time because I considered myself to be a Christian. What attracted me to the UUA was their strong sense of social justice and rational thought.

Yet something kept tugging at my heart. I needed to find a worship community where I could balance both my head and my heart while striving to "seek Justice" and to live the Words and Works of Jesus. I found it after working on Howard Dean's campaign: the United Church of Christ.

Here are two websites if you would like more information about the UUC and our history.

http://www.ucc.org
http://www.stillspea...

Check out the commercials while you're on the Stillspeaking site. They were the confirmation I needed to attend my first UCC sermon. Not all UCC chruches are the same. Some are more liberal while others are conservative. I found a relatively "moderate" church and I've found that personal sense of happiness that I was longing for.

So, yes, Howard Dean led me back to the faith.

And remember there are multiple sides to the activism.  In this story we have nuns raising questions about Wal-Mart:

http://www.mysananto...

It's a David versus Goliath battle heating up in the Hill Country - a group of nuns from Boerne is taking a stand against Wal-Mart.  The corporate giant reportedly labeled the nuns a security threat after they raised questions about Wal-Mart's business practices.

Sister Susan Mika is part of the Benedectine Sisters, which is part of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. The center has been questioning Wal-Mart's business practices for years.

"We've been raising questions with them for about 17 years, so it's not like they don't know it," Sister Mika said.

Now, the sisters find themselves on Wal-Mart's security threat list. Sister Mika said the group has been wrongly labeled.

And the nuke protesters:  http://www.commondre...

Side note to Joby: We're currently UUer's; my wife is the active one -- I like the fact that the church's philosophy is that you don't have to go to church.  But I do support them -- worked their Social Justice yard sale yesterday.

I was also raised as a Catholic, and would say on balance that I agree with core Christian beliefs.  However, if a Christian is defined as someone who attends church regularly, then I wouldn't get particularly high grades.  My Catholic upbringing has brought me into contact with some pretty incredible people--and also some real hypocrites.  The same has been true of my secular education.  One of the most devout Christians that I encountered growing up was an atheist, who had lived through the Great Depression, and who had fought in World War II.  If the man was judged based on the way he treated his neighbors, I don't think I could find a better moral paradigm.  So if an atheist practices Christian morality more faithfully than a regular Church going Christian, what does that say about the correlation between Church services and moral behavior?

Maybe he was an exception, although, based on my experience his example has not been entirely exceptional.  I think when push comes to shove that broad life experience teaches a person more about the world than life filtered through some abstract theology and a life lived in a closed community of the "faithful".  It seems to me that many true believers get their perceptions of the world second hand.  They can't really claim their attitudes as their own, because they haven't really put the received beliefs (e.g. prejudices) to the test.

What would Jesus do?  If you are to believe hardcore fundamentalists, he would speak of heavenly rewards while actively pursuing an accumulation of earthly power.  His actions would put the lie to his words.  I do not believe that Christ was a hypocrite, so I do not believe that he would aspire to high political office, or pick sides in political debates.  I think he would lead and inspire by example, rather than compelling conformity through legislation.  I also don't see why an "all-powerful being" would need the assistance of human instruments to fulfill his will.  I can see why that might be the case though for less than all powerful men and women who seek earthly power.

Which is to say simply that there is a place for faith and there is a place for politics.  In my personal life I resort to faith as a guide quite regularly (I would define "faith" as acting on the basis of my own biases and incomplete information).  However, in public life, I try to keep an open mind, and live with the awareness that neither I, nor anyone else is omniscient.  I make a conscious effort to stick to the facts, and stick to the evidence.  I hypothesize, test, and retest.

I am throwing this out because the response was shocking to me after years of Jerry Falwell badmouthing anyone not a conservative Christian. This is part of an interview that I saw between Roland Martin and Jerry Falwell, among others on the topic, "What Would Jesus Really Do?". 

---MARTIN: Let me ask you this.

Is there a Christian litmus test for a presidential candidate? Should we be basing our choice on where they stand on faith?

FALWELL: Well, I can -- yes, I think that the ideal is that we would have a man or a woman of faith who also is right on the moral issues.

But I have known many women of faith who didn't have a clue regarding national security, didn't have a clue about how to deal with terrorism, had no idea about how to change the federal courts and to defend the unborn.

And, so, it's like this. I would rather have an atheist who is a neurosurgeon of excellent talents operating on me if I ever need a brain surgery, than to have the best Sunday school teacher in the world who doesn't know a thing about it. I would much rather have the atheist, if that is his specialty.

http://transcripts.c...