We have caved on too many issues to please religious groups and churches.

[madfloridian]

They have beat the drum loudly against a women's reproductive rights, and they have basically won. Our party makes a pretense of standing up to them, but in the end they get their way.

Now it is quite common for Democratic forums to treat an abortion as something a woman chooses to do, just like if she decided to get cosmetic surgery. The right wing has managed to take a serious heartbreaking, emotional, wrenching issue and turn into something very casual. It worked very well.

Women's rights to birth control methods are also being challenged by the religious right, the anti-choice pharmacists joined by doctors who allow their religious belief to get in the way.

Since our Democrats have held Congress they upped the amount of money for failed abstinence only training by 28 million dollars. Every time it looks like someone will stand up on the issue, they cave again.

Under Democratic control the congress refused to allow women in the military access to emergency contraception in 2007. Has that been changed? Not sure.

There has been almost no change in the rights of gays. There are moments when it looks like progress is being made, but then things come to a halt.

In 2002 and 2003 the Southern Baptists help give Bush his war by preaching from the pulpit that it was a holy war between good and evil. They have been preaching about submissive women who are to be in obedience to their husbands.

In 2009 the Catholic Bishops are helping Congress draft the health care reform bill. They do not back down, they get more aggressive.

Our side is not being aggressive, we are being compliant so as not to anger them.

It is as though we have already ceded health and social issues to them.

[Jamastiene]

1. K&R

Well said.

[dmr]

2. We need to become the party of JFK

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion.

- snip -
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
- more at link -

[Maru Kitteh]

3. Democrats like J.E. who put himself out to be some great man of faiith

opposed gay marriage and then screwed the aunaturaille pooch haven't really helped matters much.

[ck4829]

4. They're to represent us, the People, not the Church. Remember that wall of separation, DC? K&R.

[cali]

5. I've had two abortions. In neither case was I gut wrenched or heartbroken.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative. And yeah, I chose to have both those abortions. That's right, I chose to have them. They were unplanned pregnancies, but I could have gone full term. I could have gotten married either time. I could have chosen adoption. And my case is not all that unusual. The two abortions happened almost 10 years apart. Once contraception failed and once the guy and I were irresponsible about b/c. I recount this because I'm so tired of the narrative of how wrenching it always is for a woman to make this decision. It wasn't for me and it isn't for quite a lot of women. It's called choice for a reason. Women have various reactions concerning choosing an abortion, but it's not all one note gut wrenching and heartbreaking.

I agree that Congress hasn't done enough and has let itself be bullied, but ENDA isn't nothing and though the inclusion of abstinence only education funds in the health reform legislation is a sucky move, you're claims aren't wholly true either:

"Appropriations for abstinence-only sex education programs have been declining since Democrats regained control of Congress in 2007. President Obama allocated no money for abstinence-only programs in his fiscal year 2010 budget request. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved HHS spending bills in July that cut funding for abstinence-only programs, opting for a "teen pregnancy prevention initiative" that would discuss abstinence along with contraception."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/172556.php

[madfloridian]

9. To correct you on the funds for abstinence. The rest is your business.

Democrats Increase Funding for Discredited Abstinence-Only Policy

"The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America's young people misinformation.

"Let's face it, with friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?" said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth. "By continuing to fund these ineffective programs, the House Democratic leadership has signaled that the health and well-being of America's teens are not their priority. Young people and their parents should be outraged.

And:

Did the Democrats leave military servicewomen without EC for political reasons?

On Wednesday, May 16, advocates were optimistic that legislation requiring emergency contraception to be stocked on all military bases would pass in the House. “We had the votes on Wednesday night. Things were looking good,” says Monica Castellanos, press secretary for Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine), one of the lead co-sponsors of the amendment that was scheduled for a vote the next day. But then, something mysterious happened.

For reasons that remain unclear, Michaud withdrew the legislation the next morning. According to Castellanos, it was purely a logistical snafu: “Key supporters had to be in their districts.” But sources close to the issue tell a different story: The legislation, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, with bipartisan support, was dropped by a Democratic leadership unwilling to go to bat for pro-choice issues. Despite Michaud’s confidence that the votes were there, Democratic leadership wasn’t so sure, and they didn’t want to hang around long enough to find out. The legislation might not have sunk, but they jumped ship anyway.

Timid Democrats

[grilled onions]

6. Politics From The Pulpit

If they insist on preaching for political causes then their tax free status should be eliminated. They can't praise helping others while at the same time ignore many of the needy because of who they are, what they represent or their lifestyle.

[AllentownJake]

7. The carrying the cross and wrapped in a flag thing nt.

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R