legislating morality

[Sufjon]

faithalone1;Thats what YOU call the intellectual evolution of the species. R Its snobbery to call the leftists the “intellectual evolution” of our species.

Most IQ’s fall within a pretty narrow range, meaning that the intellectual capacity that most people possess is within the “normal” range, and this is the range that most of what you call intellectual snobs fall under. Fact is, anyone is free to use their intellect freely. Calling those who use it snobs is likely just intellectual laziness and frustration. You can evolve just as well as anyone else.

Really its just a bunch of elitist leftists telling people whats considered intellectual,tolerant and acceptable.

Yes, I believe in tolerance. That includes tolerating an Iron Age mindset, but not Iron Age barbarism in action, which includes intolerant action like persecuting others.

setting up a nanny state and relegating faith to being something for those who haven’t been blessed by the “phenomenon” you describe.

Many “left wing intellectuals” are people of faith. Catholic Universities are full of them. In fact, I am a person of faith, but I might not qualify as an intellectual. My faith is just different than yours. Should you have the right to burn a cross on my lawn or threaten my well-being because of our differences?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Captain_America]

This is prize-class trolling, a nice example above.

Knock around a subject, titillate, insinuate, and wait for a hotheaded comment. THEN pounce on it and decry ALL your opponents as immature, nonsensical, stupid and so forth.

This is a waste of website space.

 

[achmafooma]

appeal to emotion, much?

tumor=embryo. got it;p

that is a false premise if i ever saw one. you don’t look for tumors by having somebody stand up all willynilly in front of an xray machine. are you saying that if an ultrasound wasn’t performed, you might MISS and look for a foetus in someone’s elbow?

give me a break. there are no medical reasons for performing an ultrasound. but it’s been ongoing in at least 7 states where women have been forced to undergo transvaginal “non-invasive” procedures. i think the reason it’s caught fire lately is the word “transvaginal.” some states require that the patients look at the ultrasound, like in a clockwork orange.

it’s hard to grasp the indignity of it. it would be like if you wanted to get a tooth pulled, but some religious nut in a funny hat got a law passed that you could only perform the procedure with a probe in your rectum. think about it;p and then think really hard, and tell me the real reason that some “conservative” politicians are jumping on the blunt amendment bandwagon.

I’ve had my wisdom teeth pulled. There was no ‘rectal probe,’ but the dental surgeon took an x-ray of my mouth and showed it to me. He pointed out where the teeth were impacting, their proximity to my nasal cavity and facial nerves, and explained (verbally and visually) the risks of the procedure to remove them. He was required – by simple medical ethics, if not the law – to ensure that I was fully informed about what was happening, why it was necessary, and exactly what was being removed before obtaining my consent to continue.

Even if we accept the argument that abortion is morally acceptable (which it is not), and even if we accept that it’s a medical procedure no different than any other (which it is not), an ultrasound is an essential part of giving the patient the opportunity of informed consent. They must have the opportunity to be fully informed about what’s happening, why, and what is being removed…same as any other medical procedure. Since some abortionists don’t do their job in this respect, the state is perfectly within its rights to regulate it (same as they can – and do – regulate any other medical procedure).

No, it shouldn’t be transvaginal. I agree that’s overly invasive. No, women shouldn’t be forced to look at the ultrasound (how can such a thing be enforced anyway?). But of course an ultrasound should be a required part of the procedure! Of course people who want this procedure done should have the opportunity to be fully informed by their doctors before consenting to the procedure. This is true even if we accept the ‘pro-choice’ positions (which I do not).

 

[Mumbles140]

If you read the actual research, which is supported and believed by most scientists, global warming leads to erratic weather patterns that can be expressed in diverse and multifarious ways. Of most concern is the impact on extreme weather events, shifts in how weather presents geographically in comparison to the norms for affected regions, and the outcomes observed in crop cycles and output as well as animal migrations, all of which have an effect on things like famine eventually. Ultimately, however, models built on historical data over vast periods of time show that planetary warming eventually has the opposite effect, in that it introduces variables that make conditions favorable for ice age cycles to be expressed. Of particular concern in that regard is the decline of land bound glaciers such as those found in Greenland in particular. As these move out to sea, they have a cooling effect on the gulf stream, which is a critical part of the conveyor belt that heats the planet. The first signs of such a cycle in it’s early stages would be things like unusually cold winters in Europe. Like the one we just saw. That in itself could be simply anomalous, but perhaps not. If the disappearance of land bound glacial ice continues, the likelihood of it becoming a catastrophic pattern increases, in which case it is quite possible when viewed in hindsight some years from now, events like the winter just experienced in Europe this year may be simply the chorister whose C preceded the choir. Once such a cycle progresses to a certain extent, it is impossible to stop.

Unfortunately, our intellect as a species in general hasn’t always kept pace with the technologies introduced into the mix by the minority who devise them, putting us in an unfortunate “monkey’s first day with a flashlight” position. Or more like a gorilla with loaded pistol, I suppose.

Your friend,
Sufjon.

I’m not saying civilization doesn’t impact it, my point was that it is not the only reason. Regardless, a climate discussion is a completely different thread.

This thread focused on legislating one’s morals (which some people view as ‘religious beliefs’), specifically involving the issue of abortion. If you would care to share more thoughts on that, they would be appreciated. z0wb13 and I were having some very good discussions, most recently on the recognition of the preborn child as a human. I made the argument that it was, and listed my reasons why. If my argument proves valid, that means killing that human being, who I think we can all agree is ‘defenseless’, would be murder, which is already illegal in the US Code of Law.

 

[Mumbles140]

appeal to emotion, much?

tumor=embryo. got it;p

that is a false premise if i ever saw one. you don’t look for tumors by having somebody stand up all willynilly in front of an xray machine. are you saying that if an ultrasound wasn’t performed, you might MISS and look for a foetus in someone’s elbow?

give me a break. there are no medical reasons for performing an ultrasound. but it’s been ongoing in at least 7 states where women have been forced to undergo transvaginal “non-invasive” procedures. i think the reason it’s caught fire lately is the word “transvaginal.” some states require that the patients look at the ultrasound, like in a clockwork orange.

it’s hard to grasp the indignity of it. it would be like if you wanted to get a tooth pulled, but some religious nut in a funny hat got a law passed that you could only perform the procedure with a probe in your rectum. think about it;p and then think really hard, and tell me the real reason that some “conservative” politicians are jumping on the blunt amendment bandwagon.

So asking ‘Why’ is an appeal to emotion? I want to know why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc are fighting so fiercely to prevent an ultrasound from being made mandatory. It is a valid question. Furthermore, I argued my case with logic, which you have not been unable to prove as invalid thus far, and have ceased attempting to do so, at least in your past several posts.

Saying something is a false premise doesn’t make it so. Whether you find humor in the comparison of the tumor situation, my point is this. People don’t stand in front of x-ray machines searching for tumors. They have signs that lead to the diagnosis, the issue is located, and if surgery is necessary, it will be done so. At that point, I think it would be common for a doctor to sit down with the diagnostic scan and say “this is the area affected here, we will remove it using this method, and the follow up treatment will be this.” As anecdotal support, that is what has occurred with several family members who have had cancer. In this sense, I think the premise holds pretty accurately. How can someone have informed consent if they aren’t even told what is going to occur? And for an invasive procedure, how can they be made ‘informed’ without seeing where the procedure takes place?

Who are you to make the determination that an ultrasound isn’t important? Heck, to have a tooth pulled, a doctor shows you an x-ray of your mouth to show you which tooth will be removed, and what the issue was causing it. And that is much less invasive.

Lastly, your comments regarding the ‘rectal probe’ are completely irrelevant. There is a real medical reason why patients are shown scans of their bodies. X-rays for broken bones, ultrasounds, MRIs - they all go to informed consent.

 

[Mumbles140]

there are many ways in which continuing a pregnancy can endanger a woman’s life.

Of course, I know that facts don’t really count for much in a fanatical discussion, but again, that’s why we have a secular government that usually sides with the practical realities at hand, while protecting you as best they can from religious persecution and to protect me and the health of my family from your beliefs.

Your friend
Sufjon

You really missed the point of my argument. Women have difficult pregnancies that can lead to serious, long-term issues, even death. No one is denying that. My point is that using those pregnancies as an argument for supporting abortion is a joke. If you read what I wrote, the Church does not say the woman in danger cannot be treated because she is pregnant. The Church says an abortion cannot be performed as ‘treatment’. However, a valid medical procedure that results in the death of the child is not a murderous act.

Facts count, as do valid logical arguments. I’ve provided both throughout the history of this thread, and if you took the care to read my argument more closely, or at least ask for an explanation before responding back on the offensive, you would know that.

Lastly, the government is persecuting Christians. First trying to force them out of the medical industry if they want to maintain their beliefs, and now trying to shut down employers who don’t share their same world views. It may not be the same as throwing Christians into the Colosseum, but it is still very destructive.

 

[z0wb13]

No, it shouldn’t be transvaginal. I agree that’s overly invasive. No, women shouldn’t be forced to look at the ultrasound (how can such a thing be enforced anyway?). But of course an ultrasound should be a required part of the procedure! Of course people who want this procedure done should have the opportunity to be fully informed by their doctors before consenting to the procedure. This is true even if we accept the ‘pro-choice’ positions (which I do not).

okay, but if you perform a jelly on the belly type of ultrasound during the timeframe when most abortions are performed, you won’t see anything.

these ultrasound bills are emphatically NOT medically necessary.

i fear that my point must have been lost. i realize that you don’t need to have a rectal probe to have dental work, just like you don’t need to have an ultrasound before you have an abortion.

 

[z0wb13]

I want to know why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc are fighting so fiercely to prevent an ultrasound from being made mandatory.

no you don’t. i’ve told you a thousand different ways, and you just dismiss me with the same three flawed axioms.

these are:

1. life begins at conception. (medically, you are on thin ice. cosmically, you’re off by 3.3B yrs)
2. life is sacred. (this is a religious belief)
3. the laws should protect the sacred. (this describes a theocracy, and we don’t live in one)

Lastly, the government is persecuting Christians. First trying to force them out of the medical industry if they want to maintain their beliefs, and now trying to shut down employers who don’t share their same world views. It may not be the same as throwing Christians into the Colosseum, but it is still very destructive.

you really lose me here. churches do a lot of good work with their hospitals. and they get a lot of tax dollars. and they don’t pay taxes.

but when you talk about the “government” shutting down christian businesses, then you have really gone off the rails. are you talking about coca cola? or, clear channel? what are you talking about? it’s like being fed to lions?

when was the last time you were stopped from going to church? was there ever a time when you felt you couldn’t pray? come out of this siege mentality. christians are persecuted in this country about as much as rich white guys.

the really big point that you miss about the contraception debate is that there would be less total abortions if there was easy access to condoms and birth control. and there would be less STDs, and less complications during pregnancy because women could decide when they want to get pregnant, and be taking all the right vitamins to get ready for it, etc…

i have another fun fact. 6 out of 10 women who have abortions have already carried one pregnancy to term, so i’m not sure how much “informed consent” in the world it would take to convince them not to go through with it. but the way which you dismiss the reality that some women might make considerations about their “post-born” babies (children) and their welfare before having more children illustrates so well what that article i linked to was talking about that i just couldn’t be any happier;p

 

[Mumbles140]

no you don’t. i’ve told you a thousand different ways, and you just dismiss me with the same three flawed axioms.

these are:

1. life begins at conception. (medically, you are on thin ice. cosmically, you’re off by 3.3B yrs)
2. life is sacred. (this is a religious belief)
3. the laws should protect the sacred. (this describes a theocracy, and we don’t live in one)

you really lose me here. churches do a lot of good work with their hospitals. and they get a lot of tax dollars. and they don’t pay taxes.

but when you talk about the “government” shutting down christian businesses, then you have really gone off the rails. are you talking about coca cola? or, clear channel? what are you talking about? it’s like being fed to lions?

when was the last time you were stopped from going to church? was there ever a time when you felt you couldn’t pray? come out of this siege mentality. christians are persecuted in this country about as much as rich white guys.

the really big point that you miss about the contraception debate is that there would be less total abortions if there was easy access to condoms and birth control. and there would be less STDs, and less complications during pregnancy because women could decide when they want to get pregnant, and be taking all the right vitamins to get ready for it, etc…

i have another fun fact. 6 out of 10 women who have abortions have already carried one pregnancy to term, so i’m not sure how much “informed consent” in the world it would take to convince them not to go through with it. but the way which you dismiss the reality that some women might make considerations about their “post-born” babies (children) and their welfare before having more children illustrates so well what that article i linked to was talking about that i just couldn’t be any happier;p

1. Yes, I really do. Someone from those explanations please explain why they fight to prevent ultrasounds from being done prior to a serious medical procedure.
2. Those are not the axioms I described, so please have respect for the arguments. If you want to address if a preborn child is a human being, those were laid out previously, but thus far have not been refuted or proven wrong. Working under that assumption, my argument was that it is globally accepted that it is wrong to murder a human being. It is in our Declaration of Independence, the UN Bill of Human Rights, etc. Therefore, abortion is universally wrong because it is murdering a human being. Plain and simple.
3. There are countless organizations that don’t pay taxes - they are called not-for-profit services, and they receive tax dollars because they provide services that the government would typically provide. However, the government chooses to contract out the work, and therefore pays for the organization to provide the service.
4. You want to talk about businesses? My grandfather started a company that led Catholic pilgrimmages all over the world. Anyone was welcome (there were several Jewish women on the trip to Lourdes I went on). Now, he employed 3 women to work for him. Now, he isn’t a not-for-profit organization, and he isn’t a religious institution, but he is a Catholic running a Catholic business. Under the law as it stands, he would be required to pay for health care that included that which he does not believe in. The health care provided previously didn’t have it, so why now? Why must he decide between following his faith, or breaking federal law?

If you want a real compromise, then why doesn’t Obama pad the pockets of PP, NARAL, etc and subsidize them to provide ‘supplemental insurance’ to cover these issues specifically? It still provides affordable health care covering these issues, which the Democrats (being fully supported by PP, NARAL, etc) are concerned about, but it doesn’t force it on any institution to provide the coverage. What is so wrong with that?

1. There is a difference between worship and religion. My religion binds me to certain principles that I am to live by. If I owned a business, Obama’s mandate is saying that his federal law overrides my 1st amendment right to freely practice my religion because it is forcing me to directly support that which I find wrong. During Vietnam, the US allowed conscientious objectors from serving, and so why not allow the same here? That was a war, where thousands of American lives were lost, and people didn’t have a choice to be drafted, but you could still avoid it if your religious beliefs were against war.
2. Wrong. More access to contraception increases the culture of sex. This was the way of thinking in the 60s and 70s, which led to the explosion of abortion in the US in the 80s.
3. That’s a wonderful statistic. But unless those women have ever had an abortion before, then yes, they would not be informed about the specifics, and an ultrasound would fall under informed consent.

Also, I’m not sure which part of the argument you are discussing about ‘dismissing realities’. I recall saying there are probably a lot of factors as to why women have abortions, but that does nothing to address whether abortion is wrong. Some women may have many valid reasons to not want another child. But once the women is pregnant, there is another life, which she should have no more right to kill than the same child previously born, and that thwarts any discussion as to motivation.

 

[GraceDK]

i don’t know about any other crime, but in the case of theft rape and battery, it seems like the person who commits those crimes must be a sociopath. before you commit those crimes, a person must first dehumanize their victim. a rapist especially must have no empathy for other people.

.)

Exactly. Dehumanization… thats what people do when they reduce human life, in the way they speak about it by calling a human life a “pregnancy product” so that they can thereafter commit violence or murder against it…
The same happend during communism and nazism. Human life was undermined by inhuman ideologies… Today the secular “relativist” seeks to excuse another genocide…

Dont even trust ideologies that teach you that a human worth is only worth something if it benefits the system or other individuals. A human being is a person and has indisbutable rights in and off itself… all other thinking turns into barbarity.

 

[GraceDK]

the really big point that you miss about the contraception debate is that there would be less total abortions if there was easy access to condoms and birth control. and there would be less STDs, and less complications during pregnancy **because women could decide when they want to get pregnant, **and be taking all the right vitamins to get ready for it, etc…

Women can’t decide when they get pregnant? I think I can, and I am a woman. I can choose with whom to have sex, when and under what circumstances. You do not have to treat me like a victim of cruel coincidences because I have a uterus. I am a rational person with a free will, and find it condescending if you suggest I have no self mastery. If women are so supressed or poorly educated morally and socially that they can’t make reflected choices about when and with whom to have sex, we need to deal with issues of education and proper social protection instead of showering them with pills and condoms, which might postpone pregnancy for some time but will in no way gurantee that they wont become pregnant or that they wont end up hurt emotionally, feel used and infected.

People who try to do sexology without ethics… :nope:

 

[Sufjon]

You really missed the point of my argument. Women have difficult pregnancies that can lead to serious, long-term issues, even death. No one is denying that. My point is that using those pregnancies as an argument for supporting abortion is a joke. If you read what I wrote, the Church does not say the woman in danger cannot be treated because she is pregnant. The Church says an abortion cannot be performed as ‘treatment’. However, a valid medical procedure that results in the death of the child is not a murderous act.

Treatment for ectopic pregnancies mandates a termination of the pregnancy, not some unrelated procedure that might as happenstance cause an abortion. It is in and of itself and abortion and can be needed to save the life of the mother. There are plenty of other circumstances like that.

Facts count, as do valid logical arguments. I’ve provided both throughout the history of this thread, and if you took the care to read my argument more closely, or at least ask for an explanation before responding back on the offensive, you would know that.

I think I have read what you’ve said pretty clearly. What you have been saying is that your church says it’s alright to render life saving treatments to the mother as long as the treatment is not an abortion, and it’s permissible if those treatments caused termination of a pregnancy insofar as their primary intent is not abortion and the abortion is an ancillary outcome. What I am saying is that there are circumstances that are not that unusual, where the treatment that saves the mother is in and of itself an abortion. I gave some rather common examples.

Lastly, the government is persecuting Christians. First trying to force them out of the medical industry if they want to maintain their beliefs, and now trying to shut down employers who don’t share their same world views. It may not be the same as throwing Christians into the Colosseum, but it is still very destructive.

How is the government persecuting Christians? Let’s be specific. An overwhelming majority of Americans call themselves a Christian of some sort, so it’s mostly Christians who work for the government, vote for the policy makers who run the government and set public policy. I can’t even think of a candidate in recent years for any office who didn’t pound their chest about what Christians they are. If you end up getting persecuted under such circumstances as those, then you’re hopeless. I am not Christian, but I belong to a very minority faith in this country that has much more specific social and ethical codes than Christianity, but I don’t feel persecuted because like you, I can follow them if I like. I just can’t make you follow them, or insist that the Bhagavad Gita gets posted in schools and courthouses and such things as that. If I wanted that, then I would be in the same boat as a lot of Christians - frustrated. To me it’s a grave sin to eat meat, but I can’t open a public institution that is tax exempt and insist that you have to be a vegetarian for me to include you in my programs. I’d have to let you work there or be served there even though the whole time I know there are the carcasses of half a dozen animals coursing their way through your gut, and to me, they are all precious permutations of God. But to me, that’s all on you. I am free to do otherwise. So why are you so crestfallen? You are free to do as you like inasmuch as it doesn’t infringe on my rights to believe and practice my religion, and I can do the same insofar as it doesn’t affect you. Why not do your best to be a good Christian and not worry about what the big bad government that is elected by and composed of Christians, yet preying on Christianity at every turn? Honestly, do you think Christians are out to persecute Christianity?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Women can’t decide when they get pregnant? I think I can, and I am a woman. I can choose with whom to have sex, when and under what circumstances. You do not have to treat me like a victim of cruel coincidences because I have a uterus. I am a rational person with a free will, and find it condescending if you suggest I have no self mastery. If women are so supressed or poorly educated morally and socially that they can’t make reflected choices about when and with whom to have sex, we need to deal with issues of education and proper social protection instead of showering them with pills and condoms, which might postpone pregnancy for some time but will in no way gurantee that they wont become pregnant or that they wont end up hurt emotionally, feel used and infected.

People who try to do sexology without ethics… :nope:

So now, I am certain that most people have plenty of self mastery in some manner or another. For many, managing sexual relations is not their area of mastery. For those, there are precautions available like contraceptives. Then there are the sex masters you’re alluding to who can be precise and clinical about how they manage such things as sexual and emotional relations. I am not one of those, by the way, although I dated one once, leaving a vapor trail behind me as I shot out of that arrangement . Happily, the same tools are available to them to enhance the effectiveness of their art. Moreover, I think that a well rounded, well adjusted, reasonably educated average person can navigate their way through the shower of pills and condoms you spoke of, and make some intelligent choices that lead to a happy sexual and emotional life.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Sufjon

So very sorry to hear about your Mother’s passing.

The train comment would be akin to “it’s raining cats & dogs”. There is a spiritual, a song about a train bound for Heaven, have heard performed many times, a “glory” train, a piece of musical Americana for sure.

Death panels will be set up to decide who should get health care & shouldn’t when Obamacare swings it’s “wrecking ball” at the USA; perhaps your Mother fortunately got wonderful care that will probably be EXTINCT for most ELDERLY in a few short years. Hence, it is CRUCIAL to vote out Obama & socialist hacks he’s surrounded himself with at the next presidential election in my estimation to turn things around.

 

[mlz]

I haven’t read all the posts prior to this so perhaps this has already been presented.

Haven’t both of our past popes addressed secular humanism and the culture of death. (Pope John Paul II coined the phrase, did he not?) To the person asking about this I would refer them to these writings as they can explain it better than any of us.
Blessings,
mlz

 

[Izdaari]

IMHO, so much of this thread is beside/missing the point.

Yes, we all know that morality is an important part of the basis of law. I don’t think anyone disputes that.

So, it’s kind of a necessary reason for law. But is morality a sufficient reason for law? I.e., is something being immoral enough to make a law against it? I don’t think so, not unless someone’s rights are being violated. I think law is designed to protect our God-given rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.) against the intrusions and aggressions of others. I don’t think its purpose is to make us moral – I think that’s much better left to our parents, philosophers, rabbis, pastors and priests – and I’m very wary of giving government the power to decide what’s moral and what isn’t. IOW, I take the same Lockean Natural Law-based view that Jefferson did. And that leaves me very strongly opposed to anything that even smells like theocracy.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon

So very sorry to hear about your Mother’s passing.

The train comment would be akin to “it’s raining cats & dogs”. There is a spiritual, a song about a train bound for Heaven, have heard performed many times, a “glory” train, a piece of musical Americana for sure.

Death panels will be set up to decide who should get health care & shouldn’t when Obamacare swings it’s “wrecking ball” at the USA; perhaps your Mother fortunately got wonderful care that will probably be EXTINCT for most ELDERLY in a few short years. Hence, it is CRUCIAL to vote out Obama & socialist hacks he’s surrounded himself with at the next presidential election in my estimation to turn things around.

Hi PerpbandMon: What does the president have to do with anything of that sort? He suggested that services be available for consultation and advice at end of life. I have been through that situation a number of times, and I can tell you it is much needed. He was talking about his mom’s experience when she was dying. Specifically, she didn’t know how to pay her bills and all they want to do at the same time is shove you out of the hospital. Read his story. Unlike our previous president, the current one has had real life middle class experiences. He knows what it is like to care for the dying without the resources of a rich family behind him.

Anyway, I would like to see where he has proposed any such thing as death panels. I have read his agenda carefully and would be happy to address any specific points you would like addressed. As a disclaimer, I have served and will serve again on his campaign, so if you have a question or a specific point other than a vague generality without substance I would be happy to address it,

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Mumbles140]

Treatment for ectopic pregnancies mandates a termination of the pregnancy, not some unrelated procedure that might as happenstance cause an abortion. It is in and of itself and abortion and can be needed to save the life of the mother. There are plenty of other circumstances like that.

How is the government persecuting Christians? Let’s be specific. An overwhelming majority of Americans call themselves a Christian of some sort, so it’s mostly Christians who work for the government, vote for the policy makers who run the government and set public policy. I can’t even think of a candidate in recent years for any office who didn’t pound their chest about what Christians they are. If you end up getting persecuted under such circumstances as those, then you’re hopeless. I am not Christian, but I belong to a very minority faith in this country that has much more specific social and ethical codes than Christianity, but I don’t feel persecuted because like you, I can follow them if I like. I just can’t make you follow them, or insist that the Bhagavad Gita gets posted in schools and courthouses and such things as that. If I wanted that, then I would be in the same boat as a lot of Christians - frustrated. To me it’s a grave sin to eat meat, but I can’t open a public institution that is tax exempt and insist that you have to be a vegetarian for me to include you in my programs. I’d have to let you work there or be served there even though the whole time I know there are the carcasses of half a dozen animals coursing their way through your gut, and to me, they are all precious permutations of God. But to me, that’s all on you. I am free to do otherwise. So why are you so crestfallen? You are free to do as you like inasmuch as it doesn’t infringe on my rights to believe and practice my religion, and I can do the same insofar as it doesn’t affect you. Why not do your best to be a good Christian and not worry about what the big bad government that is elected by and composed of Christians, yet preying on Christianity at every turn? Honestly, do you think Christians are out to persecute Christianity?

Your friend
Sufjon

1. The Catholic Church does not recognize removal of the tube as an abortion. However, using the chemical methotrexate is considered an abortion.
2. When you have a President making executive orders, it doesn’t matter who has been elected. And, not to say everyone in politics is insincere about their faith, but there are several prominent politicians who use ‘their personal religious values’ as an election tool, but nothing further (this practice can be traced back to Jefferson in American politics, if not prior). You may serve people who are not vegetarian, but you wouldn’t serve them meat as part of your program. There is a difference between offering your services to those not of your religious beliefs, but forcing you to make your services go against your beliefs or shut down is persecution.

Concerning the 10 Commandments, I think children should be educated on them in public schools the same way they are educated on the Code of Hammurabi or the Code of Chivalry - as examples of early codifications of law and morals, and how certain things (murder, theft, false accusations) are present universally, regardless of religion or region. As a devout Catholic, I don’t feel the need to have them displayed in court rooms, but I don’t think they only have value as a religious dogma, the same way as there are plenty of things to learn from the Bhagavad Gita that aren’t solely about religion.

You said yourself I’m free to do as I wish as long as it doesn’t infringe on your rights to belief and practice your religion, and vice-versa. So why aren’t religious institutions allowed to practice their beliefs when it comes to federal law. We aren’t trying to close all adoption agencies that allow adoption to same-sex couples, but why are we forced to lose our licensing because we don’t believe same-sex couples should adopt. We are still providing a service which benefits non-Catholics, but we stop that service before it infringes our rights.

In regards to the health care mandate, again, there have always been conscience objections included throughout history, until this President. Muslims and other pacificists were not forced to go to Vietnam, but if you were a drafted Catholic then you had no choice but to serve your country. We are talking about war, and they allowed people whose religious beliefs were anti-war to get out of something that was mandatory for everyone. So if it is okay for war, why not for contraception? Ask yourself if that isn’t a form of persecution.

 

[z0wb13]

1. The Catholic Church does not recognize removal of the tube as an abortion. However, using the chemical methotrexate is considered an abortion.

is this a medical opinion?

 

[Sufjon]

The Catholic Church does not recognize removal of the tube as an abortion. However, using the chemical methotrexate is considered an abortion.

I guess I just come from a different mindset. If removal of the tube is done for the primary purpose of terminating a pregnancy, to me that’s an abortion method. I know some religions are rather litigious in the way they go about things, so I guess I’ll just chalk it up to that.I don’t see the difference.

When you have a President making executive orders, it doesn’t matter who has been elected. And, not to say everyone in politics is insincere about their faith, but there are several prominent politicians who use ‘their personal religious values’ as an election tool, but nothing further (this practice can be traced back to Jefferson in American politics, if not prior). You may serve people who are not vegetarian, but you wouldn’t serve them meat as part of your program. There is a difference between offering your services to those not of your religious beliefs, but forcing you to make your services go against your beliefs or shut down is persecution.

Actually, I serve meat to people who come to my house. I don’t impose my way of life on other people. They have their own way of approaching God or understanding life. As for the dilemma of your church as it relates to abortion and contraception, I understand how you feel and empathize with it. However, I continually watch people run head first into walls and then just back up and keep running into the same wall. Probably your church’s public institutions are in that position because of something like tax exempt status or public funding - one or the other, maybe both, I don’t know. You could probably get around that in a number of creative ways, but it seems they insist on going head on with the US government from a moral standpoint. The government only cares about rules, regulations and laws. That’s it. Stop going at them from a moral standpoint. You’ll never, ever win. Never. Work the system instead, and there are a number of obvious ways to do that in the case of contraception and abortion.

Concerning the 10 Commandments, I think children should be educated on them in public schools the same way they are educated on the Code of Hammurabi or the Code of Chivalry - as examples of early codifications of law and morals, and how certain things (murder, theft, false accusations) are present universally, regardless of religion or region. As a devout Catholic, I don’t feel the need to have them displayed in court rooms, but I don’t think they only have value as a religious dogma, the same way as there are plenty of things to learn from the Bhagavad Gita that aren’t solely about religion.

Probably no disagreement between us on that.

You said yourself I’m free to do as I wish as long as it doesn’t infringe on your rights to belief and practice your religion, and vice-versa. So why aren’t religious institutions allowed to practice their beliefs when it comes to federal law. We aren’t trying to close all adoption agencies that allow adoption to same-sex couples, but why are we forced to lose our licensing because we don’t believe same-sex couples should adopt. We are still providing a service which benefits non-Catholics, but we stop that service before it infringes our rights.

Again, arguing with the government about adoption policies from a moral position is like trying to explain why you don’t wear checks with polka dots to a kangaroo. They don’t care! They don’t even know what you’re talking about. Find a stupid loophole. I can think of half a dozen, and so could any freeloader who uses the emergency room for a doctors office. Work the system, and stop trying to make the system adopt your values. It’s s system. It doesn’t have values. It has rules and regulations. I promise you there are lots of ways around all that without compromising the honesty or values of your church.

In regards to the health care mandate, again, there have always been conscience objections included throughout history, until this President. Muslims and other pacificists were not forced to go to Vietnam, but if you were a drafted Catholic then you had no choice but to serve your country. We are talking about war, and they allowed people whose religious beliefs were anti-war to get out of something that was mandatory for everyone. So if it is okay for war, why not for contraception? Ask yourself if that isn’t a form of persecution.

I think pacifism should be declarable on an individual case by case basis, and that your religion shouldn’t have anything to do with it. There are pacifists from every faith, and people inclined toward war from every faith. There is no religion that has no violence somewhere in it’s history, and conversely, there is no religion without it’s saints who stand as an example to us all.

Your friend
Sufjon