Absolutely none.

Obviously (or maybe it's not obvious), you get to have whatever opinion you like. Of course you get to hold the opinion that abortion is wrong on religious grounds, or any grounds. I get to hold the opinion that abortion is a private medical and health decision that only the woman involved has the right to make, in consultation with her doctor and whoever else she chooses to involve.

What is at issue here is public policy being driven by private beliefs (religious or otherwise). When individuals who are convinced that public policy should be informed by religious dogma or personal moral belief organize themselves into groups and organizations and lobbies to pass laws or propose laws to make abortion illegal, or to ban gay marriage, or to mandate prayer in public schools, or to enforce arcane laws still on the books that make adultery a crime, they have an influence that goes beyond individual belief. Focus on the Family does not have the right to tell me how to raise my daughter. It affects me if a law is passed in my state requiring parental notification for a teen to have an abortion. It affects me, not because I think that my daughter is going to have sex and get pregnant, but if that does happen, I have to worry that she might have an illegal abortion and die rather than report the pregnancy to a doctor, who would be legally required to tell me. That is an invasion of my privacy, and my daughter's privacy. It's a terrifying intrusion of the government into the private lives of individuals.

So, long story short, yes you get to have the opinion that abortion is wrong, for any reason including religious, but you don't get to tell my daughter that she has to notify me before getting an abortion. That's MY business, not yours. You don't get to tell a woman who has cancer or heart disease or diabetes or epilepsy or some other medical reason for needing an abortion that she cannot have the abortion, even if her doctor says it's necessary, unless a second doctor reviews her medical records and submits her to a physical examination and then gives his 'approval' or 'disapproval' of the first doctor's decision. What principle can you cite that gives you the right to impose your personal belief, religiously based or not, on a woman you don't even know?

Conversely, plenty of devout Christians think homosexuals deserve our love and understanding and/or think the state has no business making laws on the matter. Are their views valid?

Why wouldn't their views be valid? It does not infringe on anyone else's rights to hold the view that the state has no business making laws restricting what homosexuals can or cannot do.

I understand people getting upset by perceived outrages in political discussions, although think there are more effective means than others of persuasion.

Let me pose an alternative question, though: Why is religious belief any less legitimate a reason to come to a public policy preference than any other motivation? I'm not at all religious but still think abortion is wrong. Do I get to have that opinion because I'm not religious but those who are religious don't? Or do I not get to have that opinion because I come down on the same side as the religious?

Conversely, plenty of devout Christians think homosexuals deserve our love and understanding and/or think the state has no business making laws on the matter. Are their views valid?

Amanda, among others (myself included) is very angry that a particular segment of the Christian demographic (socially conservative Christians, the religious right) wants to pass laws, and in fact HAS passed laws, that make it harder or impossible for women to obtain abortions -- because THEY believe abortion is a sin. Amanda, among others (myself included) is outraged that people who believe, based on their personal understanding of their religion, that being homosexual is a moral crime, can actually impose that belief on others by passing laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Amanda mentioned Plan B in her rant that was widely quoted and felt to be so offensive. She mentioned Plan B because for a significant length of time (I think it was two years), Christians with a very, very, very narrow religiously based understanding of what their religion required used those religious beliefs to actually block FDA approval of making Plan B (emergency contraception) available over the counter to women 18 or older, despite the fact that a panel of FDA scientists found NO adverse health consequences. Thank God those religious nuts did not win, but Amanda, and many others (including me) find it extremely offensive -- and I, as the mother of a teenage daughter, find it personally offensive -- that a relatively small group of fanatical fundamentalist Christians could actually prevent public health decisions from being made on the basis of science, not religion.

Everything Amanda wrote was shorthand for that anger. I will say again that I think her manner of expressing her anger was intemperate and ineffective, because all many people took away from it was the conclusion that she was against religion, or against Christianity, but I don't believe that's the case. She is against people who use their religion to control the way other people are allowed to live, to control the choices that other people have available to them.

Sorry this is so long.

You'll certainly get no argument from me that these aren't some whacked out views. There's a not-so-subtle distinction between saying that the country should be governed according to biblical values and that those who oppose that end -- or even tolerate those who oppose that end -- should be murdered. And a further distinction still between saying that and, you know, doing that.

D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005. Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

Christian Coalition field director, Bill Thomson,You're going to run over them. Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them - whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures. That's your job.

Representative John Hostetler, R-IN, Christian Coalition Speech: "When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them," he told attendees. "Federal courts have no army or navy.. The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

Joseph Morecraft, pastor of the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Marietta, Georgia: "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol!"

Gary North, Institute for Christian Economics, "So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

George Grant, a leading dominionist writer in "The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action": Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.

Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a world "take over" if you will.

Jerry Falwell, 1999: "[T]hese perverted homosexuals.absolutely hate everything that you and I and most decent, God-fearing citizens stand for. Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom..If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America!"

Pat Robertson, Christian Coalition, It's going to be a spiritual battle. There will be Satanic forces.... We are not going to be coming up just against human beings, to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare."

David Limbaugh, "we have a right, indeed an obligation to govern."

Pledge recited at "Reclaiming America For Christ" conference: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."

Regards, C

See previous: Can't you just picture Amanda Marcotte in Tony Snow's job? Edwards Narrowly Avoids Becoming New Hate Object of Nutroots Greg Tinti He's decided to keep Crazy McPottymouth and her sidekick, no doubt for fear of being hit with...

I think Dobson and Falwell are more whom they have in mind. But I'll borrow your "exercise for the reader" bit for their Christian-law-should-be-American-law spiels, b/c hey, it's time for me to step AWAY from the monitor ...

Yet now, we have bloggers that are so established that a presidential candidate feels it wise to hire them in an official capacity, thereby making them beholden to said candidate. The circle by which these bloggers now find their own free speech hindered by political correctness is quite intriguing to me. As has been stated here (and I'm sure elsewhere), it's almost certain that the same speech that elevated the status of these bloggers is PRECISELY that which has now landed them in hot water.

While I prefer the term "Islamist," there's a rationale for calling the philosophy that supports Islamist terrorism "Islamofascism." Aside from the terrorists who kill abortion doctors, there are no equivalents among American Christians. Even the nuts like Pat Robertson aren't within miles of that.

Which no one who's used "Islamofascist" would be in a position to criticize, presumably.

Now, why Edwards hired bloggers who are evidently down on the Christian religion, is a good question. Speaking of which, today's Doonesbury is the first funny one I've seen in a while.