Should religious issues be pushed on to the general population?

[royal_archer]

In America, at least so far , religious people have certain inalienable rights like freedom of speech, freedom to practise religion, freedom to associate with whom we please,and freedom to petition the government for redress of wrongs,I wouldn’t call any of that pushy.Are these the kind of activities you find to be pushy? Peace!

Actually, we are not free to practice religion the School district wwe live in descriminates against the school closest to my home because there is also religion taught in that school. Mean while the government run school openly pushes Atheist, Darwinist, and Pagan beliefs.

We are not free to associate with whom we please. Civil Rights laws force us to associate with a representative sample of the population whether we want to or not. There are politicians who are trying to force the Church to associate with those whom the Church objects to.

 

[royal_archer]

Society does have a role in the definition of when life begins and when life ends as a legal matter. (separate from moral matters)

Legality: if you don’t follow the law society will punish you, includes civil liability matters.

Ethics: Your actions will likely and directly impact others but not in a way that can be addressed by legal matters.

Morality: Your actions impact your relationship with God.

These groupings are not exclusive. an act can be immoral, unethical, and illegal.
Other acts can be illegal but not immoral. such as violating zoning laws. It may not be immoral to put up a fence with out a permit but the local laws require you to do it. This is asside fromt he catch all of the morality of obeying the laws of your community.

Can society legislate the definition of life? I feel it is important that they do. You don’t want to be pulled into the emergency room and get cut up and used for spare parts before you are properly dead. In order to maintain a civil society government has a role of defining when life ends. Like wise they have a role of defining when human life begins. Untill God intervenes, we do not have any diffinitive and agreed to definition of the start of life. This is a case where the government derives it’s rightfull powers from the governed. For legal enforcement the government has to come up with a definition of the start and end of life that is tollerable by the largest portion of our population. It is our duty as Christians to educate our fellow man so that they will lobby for a definition of the start and end of life that is compatible with the teachings of the Church.

 

[kristie_m]

Society does have a role in the definition of when life begins and when life ends as a legal matter. (separate from moral matters)

Legality: if you don’t follow the law society will punish you, includes civil liability matters.

Ethics: Your actions will likely and directly impact others but not in a way that can be addressed by legal matters.

Morality: Your actions impact your relationship with God.

These groupings are not exclusive. an act can be immoral, unethical, and illegal.
Other acts can be illegal but not immoral. such as violating zoning laws. It may not be immoral to put up a fence with out a permit but the local laws require you to do it. This is asside fromt he catch all of the morality of obeying the laws of your community.

Can society legislate the definition of life? I feel it is important that they do. You don’t want to be pulled into the emergency room and get cut up and used for spare parts before you are properly dead. In order to maintain a civil society government has a role of defining when life ends. Like wise they have a role of defining when human life begins. Untill God intervenes, we do not have any diffinitive and agreed to definition of the start of life. This is a case where the government derives it’s rightfull powers from the governed. For legal enforcement the government has to come up with a definition of the start and end of life that is tollerable by the largest portion of our population. It is our duty as Christians to educate our fellow man so that they will lobby for a definition of the start and end of life that is compatible with the teachings of the Church.

great post!

 

[catharina]

Judiaism forbade abortion and euthanasia. So did the pagan Greeks (Hippocrates, 2500 yrs ago). In a view that hold medicine to be a means of support to growth and healing, people should not “need” religion to figure out abortion and euthanasia are acts that end life. Any voice that states “My religion says abortion is fine” ignores both history and shared moralty.

 

[royal_archer]

Judiaism forbade abortion and euthanasia. So did the pagan Greeks (Hippocrates, 2500 yrs ago). In a view that hold medicine to be a means of support to growth and healing, people should not “need” religion to figure out abortion and euthanasia are acts that end life. Any voice that states “My religion says abortion is fine” ignores both history and shared moralty.

Unfortunately Morality is not universally shared. Some groups of people have unusual beliefs of what they think is pleasing to God. Others worship what I consider to be false Gods such as Earth worship which is becoming more popular these days. Secular humanist also have some different views of morality. This is another reason for us with what we consider to be the proper moral persuasion to be carefull about using morality alone as a basis of law. The morality argument may be used against us by those with unusual moralities.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Medical science says that pregnancy begins at implantation. I believe this Wikipedia article addresses that issue:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Okay…

But what happens at conception?.. Let’s look at this SCIENTIFICALLY, shall we?

At the MOMENT of conception, when the sperm meets the egg, a NEW and UNIQUE set of HUMAN DNA is formed.
It never existed before… and that set of DNA is nothing other than homo sapien sapien. It’s the exact same DNA at the moment of conception, at the moment of birth, and at the moment of death. It doesn’t change… not even at implantation.

You can redefine it however you want… when “life” begins… when “pregnancy” begins… etc… in order to meet any agenda.

But I’m pretty sure that DNA doesn’t change from that moment of conception…
Fairly simple science.

Notice I didn’t mention one iota of “religion” there anywhere.
God created science too, BTW!
He won’t contradict Himself!

 

[hasikelee]

Hi everyone. Should religious issues such as abortion be pushed on to the general population? We all know that abortion is largely a religious issue because many people believe it is murder but this is based upon their religious beliefs. Their religious beliefs teach them that from the moment of conception, it is a human being or a person with legal rights. But that is a religious opinion and not a factual opinion. Should religious opinions really be pushed on to other people? I’m sorry but I don’t think they should be.

Holy cows Holly. Abortion is a human rights issue.

Do you feel that by labelling the violent killing of humans as a religious issue, it makes it easier for you to ignore the situation?

A lot of people felt that way about issues in the past. It’s a good way to ignore those who are suffering.

While you’re at it, you should also deny that the humans being killed are people. That is a very popular argument when one part of the population wants to victimize another part of the population. Classic.

 

[hasikelee]

Medical science says that pregnancy begins at implantation. I believe this Wikipedia article addresses that issue:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Actually, that definition was changed by a politician who was looking for a way to avoid scandal with the newer COC HRTs that raise the risk of early-term abortions.

By pushing the idea of pregnancy as beginning at implantation of the human onto the uterus, he avoided a lot of PR issues.

I wonder if that’s on wiki, too?

And holly, be sure you go after all those atheists and secularists who are staunchly anti-abortion. They need to know this is a religious issue!

 

[elt1956]

Hi everyone. Should religious issues such as abortion be pushed on to the general population? We all know that abortion is largely a religious issue because many people believe it is murder but this is based upon their religious beliefs. Their religious beliefs teach them that from the moment of conception, it is a human being or a person with legal rights. But that is a religious opinion and not a factual opinion. Should religious opinions really be pushed on to other people? I’m sorry but I don’t think they should be.

Although the Catholic Church teaches abortion is wrong, I don’t believe this to be only a religious issue for everyone not believing in abortion. To me it is a moral and values issue. I didn’t need the church to tell me it is wrong. Many of my non Catholic friends do not believe in abortion and some don’t belong to a specific religion. It is whether one believes in the Sanctity of life, whether one holds all life to be precious or not that lies at the root of the decision to be anti abortion. That is my reason.

 

[mlchance]

godlessprolifers.org/

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Spirithound]

Everything I was going to say has already been said! Good going y’all
Of course, that’s not going to stop me from saying it again:
When sperm meets egg, a new life is formed. This is scientifically and logically sound. Think, if a fertilized egg/zygote/fetus/newborn/infant/child/teen/adult is not a human being, then it never can be, since nothing new is added to it. A doctor said that, can’t remember his/her name (but I added the labels other than fetus). Notice that this is not a religious claim. In fact, this is the ONLY point that I consider relevant. If it is a human, no one may kill it.

Thanks Mark, for posting the godlessprolifers site.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t see how wife burning could possibly be a religious issue. To me, if you burn your wife, you’re guilty of either assault or murder.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal but that’s just me. I am against polygamy religiously but not everyone is against it as I am.

I already admit the existence of ethics independent of religion. And frankly, I don’t find your post to be very convincing either. Wife burning is obviously violating someone else’s right to live. Of course you would probably say that abortion is also violating someone else’s right to live but then we get in to the debate of when the fetus has rights and when it does not.

Truthfully ethics is both religious and secular. But I agree with you that many of the strawmen raised to make this argument are ill conceived. It does not mean that one should be free to decide for oneself that murdering another is okay. It is a common argument that has nothing to do with the issue. It could easily be raised to any law that is opposed. The fact is that medically there is no such claim that life begins at conception. Although that is my personal belief, medically, the key point seems to be when the fetus is capable of life outside the womb. Legally fetus’s are not granted personhood at this time, following essentially the medical model.

We prohibit murder because as a community we find it too disruptive to peace and rational concourse.

 

[elt1956]

I don’t see how wife burning could possibly be a religious issue. To me, if you burn your wife, you’re guilty of either assault or murder.

As for polygamy, I think it should be legal but that’s just me. I am against polygamy religiously but not everyone is against it as I am.

I already admit the existence of ethics independent of religion. And frankly, I don’t find your post to be very convincing either. Wife burning is obviously violating someone else’s right to live. Of course you would probably say that abortion is also violating someone else’s right to live but then we get in to the debate of when the fetus has rights and when it does not.

I love the sematics used by pro-choice and pro-abortion people, zygote, embryo, fetus. In pre-Roe vs. Wade days we called them babies. ANY living thing has RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY an unborn child. We could debate from now until the end of eternity what constitutes the RIGHTS of a zygote, embryo, or fetus. But then if we call this little object a BABY we have to think twice, or three or four times don’t we? If we say this little object is alive, then we need to think two, or three times of our definitions of what constitutes life. Is it growing? Is it moving? Do all the cells implanted, or joined constitute what is human? Of course. So when one aborts this zygote, embryo or fetus, it is still a human zygote, embryo or fetus. So if one feels complacent about upholding either their own right or anothers to commit genocide, then that is a mentality I will never undrstand. Life, ALL life is sacred.

 

[Newbie2]

I love the sematics used by pro-choice and pro-abortion people, zygote, embryo, fetus. In pre-Roe vs. Wade days we called them babies. ANY living thing has RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY an unborn child. We could debate from now until the end of eternity what constitutes the RIGHTS of a zygote, embryo, or fetus. But then if we call this little object a BABY we have to think twice, or three or four times don’t we? If we say this little object is alive, then we need to think two, or three times of our definitions of what constitutes life. Is it growing? Is it moving? Do all the cells implanted, or joined constitute what is human? Of course. So when one aborts this zygote, embryo or fetus, it is still a human zygote, embryo or fetus. So if one feels complacent about upholding either their own right or anothers to commit genocide, then that is a mentality I will never undrstand. Life, ALL life is sacred.

A blade of grass?

 

[elt1956]

A blade of grass?

Let’s not silly this down. Peace.

 

[mlchance]

The fact is that medically there is no such claim that life begins at conception.

Actually, it is undeniable scientific fact that a developing human embyro is both human and alive. To assert otherwise is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[catharina]

Actually, it is undeniable scientific fact that a developing human embyro is both human and alive. To assert otherwise is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark - so very true.
Thank you for saying so!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Hi everyone. Should religious issues such as abortion be pushed on to the general population? We all know that abortion is largely a religious issue because many people believe it is murder but this is based upon their religious beliefs. Their religious beliefs teach them that from the moment of conception, it is a human being or a person with legal rights. But that is a religious opinion and not a factual opinion. Should religious opinions really be pushed on to other people? I’m sorry but I don’t think they should be.

If you believed your sig line you would not make this posting.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Fine, but then the opposite also must be true: secularists cannot be allowed to force their ‘opinions’ upon me and my family. If secular nutjobs want their children to not be exposed to my wacky, misguided belief system, that is their own perogative, however, I must also be allowed to raise my children without the imposition of the misguided garbage taught by many upon them. If it’s good for the goose . . .

I believe that it is patently unfair to charge us taxes so that the nuts can force their ideas upon my children. Why should we pay taxes for this and if we don’t like it we must pay for a Catholic education besides. It is not fair.

CDL

 

[vern_humphrey]

In another thread, some claimed that Muslims don’t believe the unborn child has a soul until after the 3rd month – so laws forbidding Muslims to have abortions would violate their religion.:whacky:

Of course, Muslims also believe that women don’t have souls at all. So forbidding a Muslim to kill his wife . . .