E
elt1956
Guest
And where, may I ask, did the more humane laws of the dictatorships, Russia etc. originate if not with the Ten Commandments? Just because they are in use doesn’t mean these laws origninated with them.
- Status
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Credit does not go to the Ten Commandments or to the OT alone. It goes to the author of the Ten Commandments. For that matter were the Commandments written before or after Karl Marx?
CDL
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You have missed the point entirely.
The point is that murder, theft, perjury, fraud and many similar crimes are in the commandments, or are under the umbrella of various commandments. But we have laws against them because they are wrong, commandments or no commandments.
And abortion – which is the pre-medidated murder of a totally helpless victim – is also wrong. And to allow it undermines the whole concept of human rights (if there is no right to life, there are no human rights.)
But the pro-choice side cannot accept** that**, so they accuse the pro-life side of trying to “push their religion” on society.
It is a cynical and self-serving accusation, designed to make it appear as if abortion is right, and only religious people could oppose it.
G
Gamera
Guest
Actually, YES – a blade of grass in a public park has more legal protection than does an unborn child in the mother’s womb.
C
catharina
Guest
… and a blade of grass in a rancher’s grazing land? Ditto.
E
elt1956
Guest
I would like to add something I heard or read recently in a discussion about Relativism of which our society is rampant. If one believes all actions are relative, there is no safety for anyone. Think about it.You have missed the point entirely.
The point is that murder, theft, perjury, fraud and many similar crimes are in the commandments, or are under the umbrella of various commandments. But we have laws against them because they are wrong, commandments or no commandments.
And abortion – which is the pre-medidated murder of a totally helpless victim – is also wrong. And to allow it undermines the whole concept of human rights (if there is no right to life, there are no human rights.)
But the pro-choice side cannot accept** that**, so they accuse the pro-life side of trying to “push their religion” on society.
It is a cynical and self-serving accusation, designed to make it appear as if abortion is right, and only religious people could oppose it.
M
mlchance
Guest
The blood of more than 60 million killed by their own explicitly atheistic governments in those three places demonstrates nicely that murder and stealing were, at best, only sometimes illegal. It’s enough to remind one of that Russian author who quipped words to the effect of, “Without God, all things are permitted.”
– Mark L. Chance.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I have thought long and hard about it – the day will come when everyone on these forums sees the outcome of the abortion movement – when we are old and no longer productive, and the government decides it’s time we departed this planet.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Indeed. Then some will reflect that it would have been much better to honor religion in the public sector and not ignore it as it is increasingly ignored today. Others will just die like Lemings.
CDL
G
Gamera
Guest
Hey, I read this. It’s “Logan’s Run.” And here I was worried that the world would turn into “1984.” Wrong depressing sci-fi book.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Honor they neighbor. IMHO rape can fall into this.
Shall not kill. Rape kills the peace of mind of the person being raped.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
We seem to have the usual problem keeping focused upon the OP’s original question. “Should religious issues be pushed on to the general public?” I don’t know about the word “pushed”. In America many people think any idea expressed by anyone in any way is being “pushed” upon others. I think religion should the standard way everything is openly judged in any government. How is it really possible to separate religion from life?
CDL
CDL
E
elt1956
Guest
Hi. To me Religion is a “structure” in which we practice our beliefs. I do believe a “Religion” can be separated from life and government, but it would be impossible to separate “beliefs” or “spirituality”. Hope that makes sense.
Peace.
A
AaronsStaff
Guest
I think that the notion that the moral law in a secular society can exist without God is ridiculuous, God is the author of morality, and you cannot seperate the author from his work. If you try to erase God from what you call moral laws, you will get something else entirely, which is what we have today. In the same way, abortion is not a religious issue alone, it is a universal issue, and the religious are taking it up because people who are pro-abortion label it a religous issue. Helping the poor is not considered a religous issue, because all people try to undertake the challenge of fighting poverty. If society decided helping the poor was meaningless, it would be labeled a religous issue because only the religous would still be helping the poor. The detatchment between the natural/moral law in the secular society is a huge problem, and there is no wrong in enforcing the law written on every human heart (stealing is wrong murder is wrong). So what I am saying is that we as believers know that the moral law we hold dear is both truth and fact, and things so blatently evil such as abortion should be outlawed on the basis of it being immoral on every human level, and not just in a religous perspective.
E
elt1956
Guest
I agree. Again, I say, we are living in an era of Relativism. Therefore anything can be rationalized in this society.
Peace.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let’s not beat around the bush. We’re being asked to assent to a false proposition (that abortion is wrong only because religion says it is wrong) so someone can “prove” that opposing abortion is “pushing religion on to the general public.”
That tactic is called “begging the question.”
That tactic is called “begging the question.”
G
Gamera
Guest
To me, this is what “pushing a religious issue on to the general population” means: in old times, members of my profession (attorneys) couldn’t practice law in England until they had first appeared in court and, under oath, denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now that’s pushing a religious issue onto the public.
Nobody wants to legally require anyone to believe any particular religious tenet. This issue is about whether to outlaw the killing of babies, not whether to force anyone to agree or disagree with a particular religious belief.
Nobody wants to legally require anyone to believe any particular religious tenet. This issue is about whether to outlaw the killing of babies, not whether to force anyone to agree or disagree with a particular religious belief.
A
Amolibri
Guest
Gosh, Holly… :tsktsk: If you had asked me, I would have strongly advised you against posting your topic. How many times have we seen this “debated” here? You can see quips like “a blade of grass has more rights…” 
I think there are cases where the life of the mother is truly in danger, a fetus with no brain, a mass of cells which will/would spontaneously abort (25% of pregnancies). The doctor and the couple involved should be making these decisions. I know that these cases are the minority…but the decision should be available in cases such as these.
With all due respect, I pray that none of you, your families, or anyone you know, are faced with any of these situations.
I think there are cases where the life of the mother is truly in danger, a fetus with no brain, a mass of cells which will/would spontaneously abort (25% of pregnancies). The doctor and the couple involved should be making these decisions. I know that these cases are the minority…but the decision should be available in cases such as these.
With all due respect, I pray that none of you, your families, or anyone you know, are faced with any of these situations.
R
royal_archer
Guest
You can not make a cross the board decision because on rare occasions something may be the case.
E
elt1956
Guest
Let’s ALL try to remember this come election day 2008. Think about it.
Peace- Status