That is a major key, here. If the devout actually followed the teachings of Jesus in that sermon, they could never, ever, not in a million years, align themselves with the right. Never.

Progressive ideology is very close to that sermon. OTOH, the right opposes everything Jesus says therein.

The problem comes about when the devout ignore that sermon and embrace the rest of the bible, which is a collection of myths, legends, parables, fables and the like that often contradict and confuse myriad issues, meanings, teachings. The problem comes about when the devout selectively tune out and tune in certain literal interpretations of those fables, myths, etc. etc.

The god of the Old Testament has no problem with slavery. He gives Moses ten commandments, one of which says that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's slave. That god has no problem with genocide, as he initiates it several times and orders it several other times. That god has no problem destroying every man, woman and child for simply not believing in him. And even the god of the Christians has no problem destroying every man, woman and child who ever existed and will exist, if they do not except Jesus as their savior.

One of the few redeeming sections of that collection of myths, legends, fables et al is the one section that the "Christian Right" ignores. It must, of course, because any thinking human being on the right must realize that the Sermon on the Mount is directly opposed to their political ideology in every way possible. They can't embrace it and remain on the Right. It's literally, fundamentally impossible.

The invasion and ensuing/ongoing occupation of Iraq was a preemptive decision on the part of the Republican administration in power with the tacit (most here would say spineless) approval of the Congress including most Democrats.

Being a male, and possessing supernatural powers at that, I have never been present for or seen a transcript of what occurs in a counseling session for a woman considering an abortion at a clinic or any other organization that receives government funding.

But I can say that I don't remember any talking heads on TV or analysts openly trying to convince all the pregnant women at large to go and get an abortion because it will be good for the country or because damn it, they're women and they don't have to listen to anyone when it comes to decisions regarding their own bodies. That just isn't how it works.

Be sure to let me know when the government starts forcing women to have abortions.

Look, I know it's a complex individual and societal and religious (in some cases) issue, but I'm guessing the decision making process as to whether to have an abortion on the individual level is far more involved than the one employed by this White House (and backed by McCain) in which individuals were knowingly slaughtered by objective as collateral.

This was a pro-active decision to take human life made by our government.

The right to an abortion according to certain biological constraints is far different. I feel this point may be lost in all the numbers being thrown around, and in the comparisons to determine greater or lesser "evils".

Finally, I'm sure one of the trolls will respond with something to the effect of: "Saddam killed X number of people each year and since we deposed him only Y number of people have died each year...". This is an entirely different debate, and one that on the comparative level is dependent on unreliable numbers (some intentionally so, under this Administration) and in the logical sense no different from what I said above about pre-emptive vs. the right to have an abortion, while not having it forced upon anyone either via "marketing" or legal necessity enforced by threat of/imposition of physical force.

What I said:

Look, I know it's a complex individual and societal and religious (in some cases) issue, but I'm guessing the decision making process as to whether to have an abortion on the individual level is far more involved than the one employed by this White House (and backed by McCain) in which individuals were knowingly slaughtered by objective as collateral.

What I meant to say:

Look, I know it's a complex individual and societal and religious (in some cases) issue, but I'm guessing the decision making process as to whether to have an abortion on the individual level is far more involved than the one employed by this White House (and backed by McCain)to invade and occupy Iraq, in which individuals were knowingly slaughtered both by objective and as collateral.

In a nutshell:

The right is selling death through fear and warfare. They actively engaged in a God damned marketing campaign to convince us of the necessity to invade Iraq. As part of this, the predictable loss of human life was glossed over with all the talk about smart weaponry, shock and awe, and our supposed ability to minimize civilian deaths. Then they invaded regardless of world (and Vatican!) opinion and here we are.

Nobody is selling abortion or forcing it on anyone. To the contrary.

Which side is more Christian (Catholic)?

While you're revising your thesis, it's also worth noting that when it comes to preventing abortions, the RightWing also goes to great lengths to prevent prevention, given their persistent attacks on contraception, the morning after pill, and, lest we forget, sex education, aka "Abstinence Only." One has to wonder how many abortions result from those misapplied policies/agendas.

The problem that Ms. Lopez and her fellow Republicans have is picking and choosing portions of the Catholic doctrine as litmus tests for political candidates. Taken to its extreme, we will have the candidates debating about all of those potential babies swimming around in the end of a condom.

Taken to its extreme, we will have the candidates debating about all of those potential babies swimming around in the end of a condom.

Cue Eric Idle: "Every sperm is sacred...."

;-)

Cheers,