Is this it?

[Welshcookie 17]

I feel sorry for people who make bad decisions.

That's admirable of you.....I hope you never do....

[dalegg 143]

me='Fishdude' date='Feb 25 2006, 09:20 AM' post='46950']

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

I agree with this. Put it this way-

I believe a person of God has the obligation to stop abortions around him, though any reasonable means. In other words, if a man's wife gets pregnant and she tries to have an abortion- even if it is another man's baby- he should try through every means to stop it. But if a stranger down the street is going through the same thing, it is not really his obligation to try and stop it. It is really out of his control.

On the otherhand, a politician who also calls himself a man of God is in a delimna. If he is a religious man, and he has the ability to sign into law something that would stop something he truly believes is wrong, does he not have the obligation to do that? He has 2 forces he answers to- society and God. If faced with the choice to which trumps which- you clearly have to choose God. Therefore, your religious beliefs must come into play.

By the way, this is why the issue coming from the religious right is so uncomprimising. Why don't religious pro-life law makers make an exception to rape? It goes to the whole nature of why they are pro-life in the first place. They believe that life is the product of God. Whether that life started by consent or rape doesn't change the product. Certainly God doesn't make the exception. So it's illogical for a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) pro-life person to make this exception.

A person who's life isn't run this way has a much easier time of it. He only has to think about the good of society. The good of society is not harmed in anyway by teenaged girls having abortions, at least not in any clear way that I can think of. In fact, you can easily make the arguement that it is counter to the good of society to have unwed teenaged mothers, or women on crack giving birth to babies.

No religion I know of permits the "cleaning-up" of society this way though, so how can a man of God?

So, how can a religious man possibly run a secular state? In order to respect the (non) beliefs of many of his constituents, he has to comprimise the higher power, and I think at least in the Christian Bible, this is a sin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

me='Fishdude' date='Feb 25 2006, 09:20 AM' post='46950']

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

I agree with this. Put it this way-

I believe a person of God has the obligation to stop abortions around him, though any reasonable means. In other words, if a man's wife gets pregnant and she tries to have an abortion- even if it is another man's baby- he should try through every means to stop it. But if a stranger down the street is going through the same thing, it is not really his obligation to try and stop it. It is really out of his control.

On the otherhand, a politician who also calls himself a man of God is in a delimna. If he is a religious man, and he has the ability to sign into law something that would stop something he truly believes is wrong, does he not have the obligation to do that? He has 2 forces he answers to- society and God. If faced with the choice to which trumps which- you clearly have to choose God. Therefore, your religious beliefs must come into play.

By the way, this is why the issue coming from the religious right is so uncomprimising. Why don't religious pro-life law makers make an exception to rape? It goes to the whole nature of why they are pro-life in the first place. They believe that life is the product of God. Whether that life started by consent or rape doesn't change the product. Certainly God doesn't make the exception. So it's illogical for a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) pro-life person to make this exception.

A person who's life isn't run this way has a much easier time of it. He only has to think about the good of society. The good of society is not harmed in anyway by teenaged girls having abortions, at least not in any clear way that I can think of. In fact, you can easily make the arguement that it is counter to the good of society to have unwed teenaged mothers, or women on crack giving birth to babies.

No religion I know of permits the "cleaning-up" of society this way though, so how can a man of God?

So, how can a religious man possibly run a secular state? In order to respect the (non) beliefs of many of his constituents, he has to comprimise the higher power, and I think at least in the Christian Bible, this is a sin.

The only politicians who are men of God are priests.

I don't think any of the politicians in the senate, congress (and certainly not in the Bush administration) could be reasonably described as conscientiously religious, though I do think that there is a certain perception among some members of the public that they are. This generally comes in useful around election time.

We hear George Bush telling us how he believes in a culture of life, as demonstated by his unconstitutional grandstanding over the Terri Schiavo case this time last year. Again the least said about the Futile Care bill he passed in Texas (essentially allowing hospitals to terminate care of vegetative patients against the wishes of families) the better.

To be fair to George and Co. this isn't limited to them, but it does illustrate how politicians use religion to their favour when it suits them, and conveniently discard it when it doesn't. The problem is as Fischkoepfin said earlier is that society here in the US has become increasingly polarised, due in no small part to politicians and a disenfranchised electorate that relies on inadequate media to inform their views. Education comes (or lack of) comes into the mix too. Sadly a lot of people seem to think that saying the right thing somehow equates to doing the right thing, yet as we have seen over the last few years action does not necessarily reflect the rhetoric.

Unfortunately much of the debate around this issue is clearly intended to deflect from other issues that the public should be more concerned about. I just don't understand why people are so concerned over an issue that doesn't affect their lives, but has everything to do with affecting the lives of other people. Whatever happened to good old fashioned self-interest?

I think that christianity has lost its meaning when it enters into US politics in this way. Personally speaking, a lot of self-professed christians have a lot more in common with old testament jews. I have no problem with spiritual views, except when they are used to push a broad political agenda.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

me='Fishdude' date='Feb 25 2006, 09:20 AM' post='46950']

Essentially this debate really masks another argument, that is much deeper than the abortion issue. That is the ongoing battle between secularism and religion to define society's rules.

I agree with this. Put it this way-

I believe a person of God has the obligation to stop abortions around him, though any reasonable means. In other words, if a man's wife gets pregnant and she tries to have an abortion- even if it is another man's baby- he should try through every means to stop it. But if a stranger down the street is going through the same thing, it is not really his obligation to try and stop it. It is really out of his control.

On the otherhand, a politician who also calls himself a man of God is in a delimna. If he is a religious man, and he has the ability to sign into law something that would stop something he truly believes is wrong, does he not have the obligation to do that? He has 2 forces he answers to- society and God. If faced with the choice to which trumps which- you clearly have to choose God. Therefore, your religious beliefs must come into play.

By the way, this is why the issue coming from the religious right is so uncomprimising. Why don't religious pro-life law makers make an exception to rape? It goes to the whole nature of why they are pro-life in the first place. They believe that life is the product of God. Whether that life started by consent or rape doesn't change the product. Certainly God doesn't make the exception. So it's illogical for a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) pro-life person to make this exception.

A person who's life isn't run this way has a much easier time of it. He only has to think about the good of society. The good of society is not harmed in anyway by teenaged girls having abortions, at least not in any clear way that I can think of. In fact, you can easily make the arguement that it is counter to the good of society to have unwed teenaged mothers, or women on crack giving birth to babies.

No religion I know of permits the "cleaning-up" of society this way though, so how can a man of God?

So, how can a religious man possibly run a secular state? In order to respect the (non) beliefs of many of his constituents, he has to comprimise the higher power, and I think at least in the Christian Bible, this is a sin.

But what if my God sees this differently and expects of me to cherish the human dignity and free will of each human being over my own belief? What if my God says that what happens on earth is between him and each individual and that it is not my job to interfere with the errors of others but his?

We happen to live in a secular country which means that neither mine nor your religious beliefs are supposed to have any impact on the way the country functions. That is why freedom of religion is one of the core principles of the constitution and that is why the founders decided to not have a national church. That also means that a politician who is acting according to his religious beliefs and making them law is actually going against the constitution which happens to be more important in a secular country than your or my beliefs. If a politician cannot differentiate between the welfare of a secular society and his religious beliefs than he should not be a poitician because he violates that which unites us, the constitution which grants us to believe what we want.

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

[keltic 1]

If a woman chooses to get pregnant

thats right... women CHOOSE to get pregnant on purpose just so they can have an abortion... because its such a party

You have to admit, people live like sh*t.

according to YOUR standards... you cant set moral standards for everyone else based on your religious views

They screw around, waste money, cheat on their spouses, lie, steal. Nothing has changed. There have always since the beginning of time been people who made bad choices starting at Adam and Eve. We should help them to lead a better life, not enable this #######.

and i suppose you have a secret solution that has gone unseen for all these years since the beginning of time to make it all go away? do us all a favor and step aside and let God be the judge...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

To be fair, there is an internal logic to most religious systems. I don't agree with the reasoning, but I've heard the argument before:

The death penalty is justified because murderers are no longer considered human when they take the life of another. By definition, the unborn are innocent and sinless, so the image of a mass holocaust of unborn children is considered more immoral (and apparently more shocking) than wringing hands over the life of the 'tainted' life of a murderer.

As to the war - unfortunately some people still see things through the black and white filter of good and evil.

[dalegg 143]

The only politicians who are men of God are priests.

I don't think any of the politicians in the senate, congress (and certainly not in the Bush administration) could be reasonably described as conscientiously religious, though I do think that there is a certain perception among some members of the public that they are. This generally comes in useful around election time.

I wish I could disagee with you, on either of these points.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

To be fair, there is an internal logic to most religious systems. I don't agree with the reasoning, but I've heard the argument before:

The death penalty is justified because murderers are no longer considered human when they take the life of another. By definition, the unborn are innocent and sinless, so the image of a mass holocaust of unborn children is considered more immoral (and apparently more shocking) than wringing hands over the life of the 'tainted' life of a murderer.

As to the war - unfortunately some people still see things through the black and white filter of good and evil.

I know that there must be some logic behind all this but it is not in the Bible which is on what the religious rights claims to base their religious system and their arguments. As to the unborn, they can't be innocent within the belief system because there is such a thing as inherited sin, I hear, as a result of the Fall: "through Adam's Fall, we're sinners all" (The New England Primer).

I usually try to be fair, but sometimes I just can't resist pointing to some gaping logical holes, especially when the claim is that of an uncompromising belief system.

[dalegg 143]

But what if my God sees this differently and expects of me to cherish the human dignity and free will of each human being over my own belief? What if my God says that what happens on earth is between him and each individual and that it is not my job to interfere with the errors of others but his?

Then you are not worshipping the same God as most other people. I'm referring to the God that Muslims, Chrisitians, Catholics, and Jews worship.

We happen to live in a secular country which means that neither mine nor your religious beliefs are supposed to have any impact on the way the country functions. That is why freedom of religion is one of the core principles of the constitution and that is why the founders decided to not have a national church. That also means that a politician who is acting according to his religious beliefs and making them law is actually going against the constitution which happens to be more important in a secular country than your or my beliefs. If a politician cannot differentiate between the welfare of a secular society and his religious beliefs than he should not be a poitician because he violates that which unites us, the constitution which grants us to believe what we want.

That's right. This is why I believe it is impossible for a man of faith to conscientiously do this job correctly. But, that leads to another question. What if a man who truly believed he had the power to stop what he considers morally wrong knows he could get elected and do it. Is he not morally obligated to try to get elected?

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

Yes, it is. In the true spirit of living under God, human beings should not be killing other human beings. War is a bit different because you get into a slippery slope of defending yourself and nation, but I think the last few don't completely pass the WWJD test.

[ace13 0]

If a woman chooses to get pregnant

thats right... women CHOOSE to get pregnant on purpose just so they can have an abortion... because its such a party

You have to admit, people live like sh*t.

according to YOUR standards... you cant set moral standards for everyone else based on your religious views

They screw around, waste money, cheat on their spouses, lie, steal. Nothing has changed. There have always since the beginning of time been people who made bad choices starting at Adam and Eve. We should help them to lead a better life, not enable this #######.

and i suppose you have a secret solution that has gone unseen for all these years since the beginning of time to make it all go away? do us all a favor and step aside and let God be the judge...

What is your solution? Or do you think all is fine and dandy...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

To be fair, there is an internal logic to most religious systems. I don't agree with the reasoning, but I've heard the argument before:

The death penalty is justified because murderers are no longer considered human when they take the life of another. By definition, the unborn are innocent and sinless, so the image of a mass holocaust of unborn children is considered more immoral (and apparently more shocking) than wringing hands over the life of the 'tainted' life of a murderer.

As to the war - unfortunately some people still see things through the black and white filter of good and evil.

I know that there must be some logic behind all this but it is not in the Bible which is on what the religious rights claims to base their religious system and their arguments. As to the unborn, they can't be innocent within the belief system because there is such a thing as inherited sin, I hear, as a result of the Fall: "through Adam's Fall, we're sinners all" (The New England Primer).

I usually try to be fair, but sometimes I just can't resist pointing to some gaping logical holes, especially when the claim is that of an uncompromising belief system.

The problem with christianity is that it is not uncompromising, and admittedly we are perhaps as guilty of misrepresenting the christian religion in the same way that others misrepresent Islam. Christianity is not an absolute in itself, only within certain branches that hold their moral values above those of everybody else. The fact that there is so much diversity within the christian religion is what gives it its relevance (though the absolutists will doubtless take issue with that). Its also a mystery to me why so many christians take more inspiration from the old testament than the new - which is really the only way you can rationalise the whole abortion vs. capital punishment thing. What it comes down to with abortion is the lives of unborn children having more 'value' than that of convicted murderers.

On a separate point, most self-avowed atheists (in the west) are little more than non-practicing christians - who have been brought up in predominantly christian countries, surrounded by a lifetime of christian ideology.

What if a man who truly believed he had the power to stop what he considers morally wrong knows he could get elected and do it. Is he not morally obligated to try to get elected?

Hypothetically yes, but that isn't why political stand for office.

[keltic 1]

If a woman chooses to get pregnant

thats right... women CHOOSE to get pregnant on purpose just so they can have an abortion... because its such a party

You have to admit, people live like sh*t.

according to YOUR standards... you cant set moral standards for everyone else based on your religious views

They screw around, waste money, cheat on their spouses, lie, steal. Nothing has changed. There have always since the beginning of time been people who made bad choices starting at Adam and Eve. We should help them to lead a better life, not enable this #######.

and i suppose you have a secret solution that has gone unseen for all these years since the beginning of time to make it all go away? do us all a favor and step aside and let God be the judge...

What is your solution? Or do you think all is fine and dandy...

im not the one claiming to have the solution... you inferred it with your statement :

"We should help them to lead a better life, not enable this #######"

speaking your language here... so, since you want to stop enabling, what do you suggest? forcing your religious beliefs on all ppl? from what i read in the bible, God doesnt condone FORCING others to come to him... isnt that why He gave us free will? to choose what we wish? and to live by the laws of the govt (give unto ceasar)? not legislate those laws to be in the parameters of Christianity? what happened to spreading the word and if its not taken then moving on (as Christ said to do)? why are you not satisfied that in the views of Christianity, we will all be judged based on our action and God will decide our blessings or punishments?

i have my beliefs... they are sound... i know what is right or wrong for me... i also know what i think might make others lives easier... but its not my place to tell them how they MUST live... i am free to express my opinion, NOT force it onto others... you wouldnt want someone to make a law that when your husband dies, you MUST throw yourself on a pyre because religiously its the right thing to do... leave your religious beliefs out of the laws, or you risk having someone elses beliefs forced on you

[Sister Fracas 5]

leave your religious beliefs out of the laws, or you risk having someone elses beliefs forced on you

This is the best line of this whole thread!

[ladyspotthedog 0]

. If a woman gets pregnant and cant afford the child and cant give them the type of home they deserve, the only right thing to do is to put the child up for adoption.

You know this adoption 'answer' is all very well but I believe many people would be disinclined to have their child adopted because of the laws giving the child the right to seek out their birth parents. Now I'm not saying that's wrong per se and, of course, a child has every right to seek out their birth parents BUT what about the birth parents in all of this? I'm not sure about US laws regarding adoption (perhaps I shouldn't be posting this) but I can't believe they're that much different to the UK, where, a new bill has been passed that states that all adopted children MUST have contact with their birth family when adopted to a new family.Now whilst this seems on one side to be perfect, I personally think it will put people off adopting. People, in general, don't want things coming back to bite them on the a** so to speak, and it's sad to think that what's so right on hand hand could potentially be calamatous on the other. This also spreads to the sperm donor issue (where men will be held accountable as parents)...that'll cause a drop off in donations I'm sure.

Anyway, all in all I'm pro choice and I can't see another way round it, the implications of making abortion illegal just doesn't bear thinking about.

All I can say is if your religious beliefs say that having an abortion condemns you to hell or purgatory or whatever other nasty you can dream up why not just be smug in your knowledge that they're knackered and you're on your way to divine happiness and let us do what God intended and have freedom of CHOICE

[Carol&Marc 0]

I hope you don't socialize too much, otherwise people might start calling you a socialist (by your logic).

As to your plan, I'm fine with that. I have no problem paying for my healthcare only once instead of twice and since I'm already financing state and federal health plans, to which I, as an alien taxpayer, have no access whatsoever, I would finally be lowering my monthly health expenses. Maybe you could do me the favor and vote for someone in the next election who would enable me to do this...

I would love to see the welfare system abolished,give everyone on it two years notice then POOF gone!

case solved! as far as what is right or wrong we all know,i dont need any religion to tell me that! you were given a consious USE IT! time for a beer.