I just read the position page. These positions are wrong ... how? The positions seem highly sensible to me.

2 of their positions are wrong.

Affirmative Action - their first point isn't bad, as anything the government does should not be biased on race, sex, etc. the other 2, however, imply that the same principle (empowerment, development, advancement of women, blacks, etc.) be forcibly applied to private individuals - even at the cost of denying other individuals basic rights to their own thoughts, or their own property. individuals have the right to descriminate if they so desire. we don't have to like it, but we have to accept it.

Gun Restriction

I am not in law enforcement, or the military. I'm not a "licensed guard," nor a hunter, nor a sport-shooter. but if you break into my house at 2am, you will find out that I AM the guardian of myself, my family, and my property. I'm not my own guardian because the government allows me to be, but rather I am my own guardian first, and then I confer certain protective responsibilities from myself to the police or the military voluntarily. I do not require a license to protect myself. it is a natural right.

the other positions they have have solid bases, even if they do not argue the merits of their positions on those solid bases.

I wonder whether the positions are the positions of the Chicago local, or of the entire YWCA. I agree philosophically with virtually all of the YWCA's positions, however. Firearms registration is not the same thing as taking firearms away. It may keep some guns out of the hands of criminals and will not abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, I am consistently amazed by the supposed "family values" and "pro-life" crowd that values life up to birth, but cares nothing for helping families cope and thrive through family-friendly work, day-care and insurance policies. And don't get me started on the completely logically inconsistent support for pro-life policies coupled with support for the death penalty! Lock 'em away forever, but let's not play God. Finally, I do believe that Jesus' actions and words were inclusive and tolerant, much more so than today's Christian Right.

Thank you, though--I appreciate your efforts and the opportunity to post to this forum, even though I do not usually share your views.

Jesus was tolerant, yes, but he was also firm, telling a woman (whose life he had just saved from those wanting to kill her for her sin) to "go and sin no more", and especially dealing with those who exploited others, as the moneychangers were doing in the temple. I would say Jesus was more inclusive than what is called the Christian Right, but probably not so tolerant as some wish He were.

And yes, some of those people who are regarded as representing mainstream Christianity do seem to send mixed messages when it comes to ideas such as abortion and the death penalty. As a Christian, I myself believe I cannot support either one at this point. (Granted, there are those criminals, such as the dad who killed his own daughter and her best friend on Sunday, who I would feel deserve to die, but, when I have calmed down, I don't think I could bring myself to vote to kill him. "Vengeance is mine"--Romans 12:19)

luke...I knew a Luke Crouch (who was a baby at the time) about 20 years ago; he had a twin brother. Any relation?