Morning-After Pill a religious issue.

Tags: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Read Discussion
Reply to All

MichaelAllen
No need to check. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Sorry Michael for my last overly pointed response.

I just went back and reread your posts and with the exception of when you said "Separation of Church and State is a facade" I think we agree.

I was reading your posts out of context and I reacted badly. I usually try to read all posts and think before I respond. I clearly didn't do that in this case.

Please accept my apology.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

While it is true in a democracy such as ours everyone even the religious fanatics have a right to express their opinions. However, what I find disturbing is the imposition of laws that are based entirely upon religious beliefs and convictions. These have no place in our society. Religion IMO should remain where it belongs in houses of worship and at home and never be imposed upon the general public.

Imposition. That's the word that hits the nail on the head. Religous "arseholes" are the only ones demanding that their beliefs be imposed on everyone. What'a the point of "pro-choice" laws, if the fundy's can simply buy a gun and shoot the doctors and nurses who work at, and the women who use abortion clinics. A situation which occurs with monotonous regularity. I don't see that group being widely condemned for the evil they espouse.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Sorry Michael for my last overly pointed response.

I just went back and reread your posts and with the exception of when you said "Separation of Church and State is a facade" I think we agree.

I was reading your posts out of context and I reacted badly. I usually try to read all posts and think before I respond. I clearly didn't do that in this case.

Please accept my apology.

Not a problem. And you made a good point. As far as that is concerned, you made accurate statements. But, overlooking other things like prayer before Congress (I'm not sure if they've done away with that yet), "In God We Trust" still on our money...etc. On a scale, it has only just begun to tip the way of actual separation coming from a time in history when we would dip witches in water and our court of law had a right to prosecute them just for being one.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Imposition. That's the word that hits the nail on the head. Religous "arseholes" are the only ones demanding that their beliefs be imposed on everyone.

"...the only ones..."

The fatal flaw in discussions of this nature is the difficulty in being able to see all sides. When religious discussion leads to passion for or against, clarity goes out the window. Statements such as "the only ones" are made. Politics is nothing but imposing one system of beliefs over another. Campaigns, debates and votes ultimately decide a "winner" so that person can go into office and start imposing the beliefs of his or her campaign.

As far as seeing all sides, the religious feel that people are imposing their beliefs on them. So, now that you feel it too, you should be able to find some common ground. Telling them they need to take a back seat while you do whatever you want in government is stripping from them the agreed upon right to oppose you. You fear that, you don't belong in a democracy.

0 Replies

When was the last time an athiest knocked on your door and told you that you won't go to hell?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Frank
As usual we disagree. The only reason for the controversy regarding the pill is one of religion.

Even if it were, having one's religion persuade one to lobby in a certain direction should not be an exclusionary item.

How one comes to the decisions one makes should not be factored into whether or not they can advocate them.

Quote:

On that basis I object. And I wouldn't care if every religious group objected to it. I would still insist that religion should not be the basis for civil law.

Well here you are arguing that you have come to the decision that "religion should not be the basis for civil law." What if a theist argued that secular/humanistic thoughts like that should not be allowed to influence civil law?

Let the religious lobby for whatever they will. That is their right in a democracy. Argue against there proposals if you choose -- and I encourage you to do that -- but you really go way off track if you argue that they should not have the right to do so.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Imposition. That's the word that hits the nail on the head. Religous "arseholes" are the only ones demanding that their beliefs be imposed on everyone. What'a the point of "pro-choice" laws, if the fundy's can simply buy a gun and shoot the doctors and nurses who work at, and the women who use abortion clinics. A situation which occurs with monotonous regularity. I don't see that group being widely condemned for the evil they espouse.

Wilso,

Let's make a distinction here. If people want to believe that abortion is wrong (even terribly wrong) they have the right and perhaps the responsibility to do everything they can make it illegal within our legal system.

They have the right to elect officials who agree with them. They have the right to speak out as eloquently or as loudly as they can about their point of view. They have the right to convince as many people as they can that they are correct using any line of reasoning.

If doing these things - which are the foundation of the US democracy (and I would assume all real democracies - pisses you off. Well, deal with it! That's the price you pay for living in a free open pluralistic society.

The vast very small number of people who use violence (and it is a very small number) should be prosecuted.

But stop name calling. Your use of the word "Fundy" is nothing more than an ethnic slur. You are lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one large group that you can denigrate. You probably don't realize that many of the people you are slandering agree with you in many other issues.

And Geesh! It seems like religous "Arseholes" aren't the only ones who are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

If you don't like democracy, what would you propose in its place?

0 Replies

MichaelAllen
Are you attempting to equate religious beliefs with political ones. Even though I may disagree with them I have no objections to laws made based on political considerations. However, I object strenuously to laws made that are tainted with the stink of religion.

0 Replies

I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I have and will continue to object to the arseholes doing it to me. And if you don't like me calling them the stupid superstitious cocksuckers they are, then I suggest you exercise your democratic right not to read my posts.

0 Replies

I should add IMO laws should never be made in a secular society based strictly on the majorities religious beliefs. It starts with small and insignificant issues but who knows where it ends. It could be the first stop on the road to hell.[figuratively speaking}

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I have and will continue to object to the arseholes doing it to me. And if you don't like me calling them the stupid superstitious cocksuckers they are, then I suggest you exercise your democratic right not to read my posts.

No I rather enjoy reading your posts. Some of the ideas you express are amusingly extreme and laughably bigoted, and I say that in the most loving way.

I am exercising my democratic right to point out that your seemingly passionate hatred is clouding your ability to think rationally. You have posted rational balance thoughts elsewhere.

Vulgar namecalling is not helping your argument to seem any more intelligent.

0 Replies

Au,

I am still waiting to hear how you would change the Constitution to iplement this plan.

Be aware that the abolition movement (against slavery) was largely motivated by religious grounds, as are the current laws against pedophilia and incest.

Would you get rid of all such religiously-based laws that "impose" morality on you?

0 Replies

There is more immorality to religion than there is morality. Religion is the scourge of mankind. But that is another subject.
What makes you think that the laws against pedophilia and incest are religiously motivated? The next thing you will be telling me that the laws against murder would not exist if it were not for the ten commandments. The people who wrote the religious myths would have come up with laws of decency with or without all those religious trimmings.
Now if you are asking me how we are to stop the tyranny of religion. Unfortunately we can't and therein lies the conundrum and the danger.. .

0 Replies

The abolition of slavery would have come about with or without the religious abolitionists. Religion did in no way put an end of slavery in this nation. In fact that was only an afterthought during the civil war.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

[figuratively speaking}

Glad you added that.

0 Replies

Au and Wilso,

You both sound far more fanatic and more religious than anyone I have heard here and than most of the "fundamentalists" I know. But you are right, there is nothing I can do to stop the tyranny of fanaticism. Therein lies the conundrum.

But I will leave you with the words of one of my favorite Baptist preachers in one of the most powerful religious movements in the history of our nation.

Quote:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

The link is here for those who are open-minded enough to appreciate it. It is a great sermon and has a very moving interpretation of the story Jesus told of the good Samaritan.

http://www.afscme.org/about/kingspch.htm

0 Replies

Martin Luther King was a champion to his people and to the civil rights movement and the nation. . I will have to forgive him his religious convictions.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

When was the last time an athiest knocked on your door and told you that you won't go to hell?

Obviously not understanding the difference between street corner preaching and a political arena.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

MichaelAllen
Are you attempting to equate religious beliefs with political ones. Even though I may disagree with them I have no objections to laws made based on political considerations. However, I object strenuously to laws made that are tainted with the stink of religion.

People come to political views from all walks of life. A person might believe in helmet laws because his father died in a motorcycle accident. Another person might be for gun control because his best friend was shot by an unlocked gun his father owned. These people have a right to enter the debate and put their two cents worth into the mix.

If politics leads to a resolve of the complexity of community issues, all people have a right to influence public opinion. All of this democratic opposition to religious representation and you have Al Sharpton in your camp. Look at what Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did for politics and the world for that matter. I guess they should have kept their noses out of politics because they had religious views. Malcolm X was a reverand. But, go ahead, see it your one-sided way.

And, yes, to the religious, their political beliefs are their religious beliefs. But, everyone is that way. People want government to make decisions that effect their lives. If your life is what is at stake, your worldview is what is going to influence that no matter what ideology you got it from.

0 Replies

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Morning-After Pill a religious issue.

Related Topics