So Nancy Pelosi’s strategy for winning the House in 2018, and bringing honor to the Democrats, is to begin appealing to religious ideologues.

I write this in regards to her new stance on what she thinks  the democrats position on abortion should be. In particular, people should just chill out… and like be more receptive man. She thinks the party shouldn’t take a hard stance on the issue. Her opinion, not mine.

I find this a bit disconcerting. Not because I am for or against abortion in particular. But truthfully people who vote based on the pro-life stance of a candidate tend to subscribe to a certain fantasy involving a magical Jewish hippy that turns water into wine.

This particular hippy is better known by his Christian name Jesus, and apparently the Democrats don’t see a path to victory if they don’t cater to the idiots who believe in him. Abortion for many of these doo doo heads is a primary topic for them, and apparently is the litmus test used to determine a political candidate’s morality. Stumble on this issue once, no matter how pious or patriotic you are in all other aspects of your life, and you will be damned to hell or worse not get elected.”

Like not cool man

Truthfully, I think abortion could be debated without involving religion. There certainly are some strengths and weaknesses to each side of the argument. But Christians are so obsessed on this one thing that it is almost impossible to divorce religious insincerity from the conversation. The Republicans have taken the default pro-choice opinion on the topic, thus they have complete and total control over these Jesus freaks. It’s saddening really, because these people will blindly follow this party no matter how bad its decision making is.

I witnessed this very thing happen in the office I work in. Everyone, I work with unabashedly admitted that Donald Trump was a terrible choice for president, and by in large a terrible human being. However, they could set aside all his inexperience, and moral impropriety, so long as he publicly took a stand against abortion.

I get why the Dems would want to cater to religious groups. They got their asses handed to them this last election. Hillary Clinton on paper should have been the winner, but instead we got a deranged oompa loompa as our president. These people make up a large group of voters in this country, and maybe just maybe the tide could have been turned if they’d worked to get their vote.


This of course is assuming that Hillary Clinton ran a flawless campaign, wasn’t a total creep, and hadn’t completely ignored the midwest vote.

In all aspects of life other than politics I’d probably agree with Pelosi’s stance on abortion. A particular stance on this issue shouldn’t be a barrier to entry for anything. Politics is different though, and it really comes down to balance. It balances out the crazy of the Republicans. Organized religion as a whole is an antiquated idea. One that might have been necessary for developing civilizations, but unnecessary now.

Pelosi taking a neutral stance on abortion means she is willing to cater to the illogical masses, some of which still believe in witchcraft, or think that dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil.

Do you see where I am going with this?

One of the founding principles of this country is freedom for religion. Meaning that the founding fathers did not intend for the U.S. to become a theocracy. Which is ironic because the very people who vote Republican, who are Christian, and claim to love freedom also tend to have a problem with Muslims, Atheists and maybe to a lesser extent Jews. When in reality their ideological dream country more closely mimics the theocratic societies in the Middle East.

Different book, same concept.

So my issue with Pelosi statements aren’t specifically on abortion per se. It is instead what is not being said, and the particular implications it could have on politics in the future if implemented. Ultimately she is saying that the democratic party is only concerned with winning and nothing else, and that the only way to do this is to give more of a voice to people who completely lack foresight, and may very well be already on the extreme fringes of their religion.

Where does the line begin and end when catering to the Christians. The extremists of the religion, who are so concerned with the hypothetical lives of unborn children that they would vote for a madman like Trump, are also people who think being gay is a mental illness. Do we begin entertaining the thought of reversing gay marriage, or like Mike Pence become advocates for conversion therapy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s