<p>
The same proof you have that homosexuality is morally correct. You have no proof of this. It is just an article of faith that means nothing at all, except to the people who know in the bottom of their hearts that it is true.</p>
<p>“What you seem to be saying is, you have no problem with people of faith, as long as they are faithless.”</p>
<p>Huh??? How in the world did you get THAT out of what I said? </p>
<p>I honor and respect everyone’s right to their own beliefs, faith, and lack thereof. The only way to honor everyone’s rights is to draw the line where another’s begins.</p>
<p>" When the issue is grey, you havent yet been able to make up your mind. Right?"</p>
<p>Wrong. I believe abortion is killing a baby. Murder. Period.</p>
<p>Now, what to do about it, that is a different matter.</p>
<p>I also believe killing animals for food is wrong. Period.</p>
<p>But most of my friends eat meat. What am I supposed to do, not associate with anyone who doesn’t share my beliefs? No. I try to share info whenever appropriate without forcing my beliefs on others.</p>
<p>“But dont you see, you are in fact here taking a position, and then by allying with other feminists you are trying to win support for the view that both sides are to be respected.”</p>
<p>Wrong again. FFL takes a very definite stand that abortion is wrong. It’s just that they are different from other pro-life organizations because they contend that abortion ALSO hurts women and is often used to oppress women. They do not judge women facing abortions, but show compassion and offer alternatives. They are NOT religious-based at all. They offer a feminist perspective that is completely different from the religious view. </p>
<p>Compassion. It’s compassion. Women facing the prospect of abortions should not be called murderers and put in the same category as someone who kills another person. Not because it is any less violent. But because most women who ‘choose’ abortion do not really choose it at all - they are desperate. They are backed into a corner and believe that their only ‘choice’ is to destroy the life growing inside them, in order to keep their career, their scholarship, their man, their financial security…FFL contends that no woman should ever have to choose between a career, an education, a man…and her baby. FFL contends that true empowerment of women would provide education and resources…so that women are not in that position faced with such a horrible ‘choice.’</p>
<p>
Okay. Here is how. [In a prior post you said](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3154776&postcount=260”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3154776&postcount=260</a>
): This is the belief that Christians hold as factual, but is actually only their opinion. They believe the bible is the word of God, and I respect their belief, but the conflict occurs when that belief is imposed on others; when they back up their arguments with quotes from a book that not everyone believes is authoritative. Now, what I am saying is that the very moment you yourself make an assertion, you are doing to the Christians precisely what they are doing to you. You are asserting moral views on the basis of some source of belief that they very well may not accept. When you claim they are welcome to their opinion, but have a problem when they impose those opinions on you, you in fact are saying you have a problem with them living in accord with what they know to be true.</p>
<p>Well, I have a problem with that too, but rather than complain as if they do not have a right to do this, I participate in the system, debate to change minds, get involved with like-minded people and basically contend for the publics will just like everyone else. You win some, you lose some. As long as no one upsets the foundation on which the system depends (and you have touched on it in a prior post), then our civilization is maintained. What I fear is that we are heading down an ugly slope where Christians will increasingly lose their rights because everyone thinks they are being imposed upon simply because the Christians are sharing ideas that we really dont want to see the light of day. We are already saying that church leaders cannot simply speak their minds on politics in their churches lest we charge them money. We are acting as if a mere exchange of ideas necessarily crashes the wall of separation between church and state when in fact it is just this guy saying something about the goings on outside of his church. I think we are just afraid of the power of religious ideas and have decided to smash the wall of separation while claiming we are protecting it. I think it set a bad precedent, and that if we arent careful, these people will increasingly become sitting ducks in our system. They have a right to do every single thing they are doing every single thing.</p>
<p>
Surely you must see the rank dogmatism here. Others will vociferously disagree. They will say it is impossible to draw the line where anothers begin because there is too much disagreement and overlap. They will argue that the only way to honor everyones rights is to allow everyone equal freedom to contend within the system, but not equal rights to outcome. I have heard this more times than I care to remember, but, you know, I have always accepted that these folks have a point.</p>
<p>
Then I would say this isnt grey. You know it is murder.</p>
<p>
If this aspect of the issue is grey, then by implication you have simply declared that you do not know what to do in cases of this kind of murder.</p>
<p>
Not grey.</p>
<p>
But if peta ever gets a chance to put the issue on a ballot, would you actually vote against something you know is wrong. Period.? Or maybe you think Peta ought not even try to create animal rights legislation, since you dont want it forced on others. I am sincerely baffled by your view. You have to believe in something, and if you do and begin to support laws regarding it, then you are doing what the Christians are doing. I dont see any way around this.</p>
<p>One thing I need to say, before I run to bed. I just love disagreeing with someone on something that is important and having that person have your attitude. It’s just fabulous, and you have my greatest respect.</p>
<p>Well, um, thanks… (I think!) Not sure if you just gave me a compliment or were being sarcastic. Hard to tell with this limited mode of communication.</p>
<p>“When you claim they are welcome to their opinion, but have a problem when they “impose” those opinions on you, you in fact are saying you have a problem with them living in accord with what they know to be true.”</p>
<p>No, that’s not what I meant. I have no problem with others choosing to believe that they will only be saved if they are Christian, or whatever. I don’t even have a problem with them trying to convince me of anything, because I can always politely refuse. They have the right to attempt to share their ideas with me just as I have the right the share the ideas I am sharing right now. No problem there.</p>
<p>The key word is ‘impose.’ OFFERING some ideas is not imposing. FORCING those ideas thru legislation or intimidation is. </p>
<p>"They will say it is impossible to draw the line where another’s begin because there is too much disagreement and overlap. "</p>
<p>It sounds like you are referring to beliefs. I would agree that it would be impossible to draw the line on beliefs because of the overlap and disagreement. There is no way to please everyone. For example, if everyone was expected to be Christian, but had the freedom to be Catholic or Baptist or whatever, the Mormons would say they are Christian too but the born-agains would say they are not. It’s totally impossible to draw any line on beliefs.</p>
<p>However, I am not speaking of beliefs. I am speaking of actions. They can believe whatever they want. They just don’t have the right to force others to follow their beliefs. Example: For a Christian to believe a gay person is ‘sinning’ is their right. To attack that gay person is NOT their right. Example: For a Christian to believe non-Christians are going to hell is their right. To enact laws making it illegal for a Buddhist to worship as s/he wishes is NOT their right.</p>
<p>There is no grey area with the idea of drawing the line where another person’s rights begin. Christians (or any other group) have the right to be Christians. They don’t have the right to force others to be Christians. They have the right to believe that they should be able to force others, but they don’t have the right to actually do that. How? Simple. They don’t have the right to take away others’ freedom of religion by turning this country into a theocracy (which is the ultimate goal of many of them - I have heard it preached in churches).</p>
<p>“Well, I have a problem with that too, but rather than complain as if they do not have a right to do this, I participate in the system, debate to change minds, get involved with like-minded people and basically contend for the public’s will just like everyone else. You win some, you lose some. As long as no one upsets the foundation on which the system depends (and you have touched on it in a prior post),”</p>
<p>What do you mean I ‘touched on it?’ Touched on what?</p>
<p>Of course, the system can change if the the majority desire it, or, if a person or small group of people somehow get in power and take away our liberties and freedoms (as the bush regime was heading towards). That would be a shame, just as it was a shame that the bush regime already took away Habeas Corpus (I won’t go more into that, since it was already addressed in another thread). The very principles this country was founded on include the freedom of the individual. The only way for each individual to have freedom is if one does not have ‘more’ freedom than another by his/her freedom including the right to take away the freedom of another.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a grey area at all. It’s very logical and the only way to ensure that basic rights are respected. Killing is wrong because (among other reasons) obviously it’s is the ultimate taking away of their freedom.</p>
<p>“Now, what I am saying is that the very moment you yourself make an assertion, you are doing to the Christians precisely what they are doing to you. You are asserting moral views on the basis of some source of belief that they very well may not accept.”</p>
<p>No, I am NOT doing the same as they because I am not trying to pass laws prohibiting them from being Christian, like they are trying to pass laws prohibiting people from being non-Christian.</p>
<p>I would love to see killing animals for food eliminated, but I am realistic to know that it won’t happen any time soon. That IS a grey area because not everyone believes that animals ought to have any rights at all. Note: when I say something is a grey area, that doesn’t necesssarily mean that I think it is grey. It means that I acknowledge others’ views on it. I understand their points, even if I don’t agree with them. Understanding is not the same as agreeing. It is possible to understand and attempt to reconcile while still holding one’s beleifs. That is part of being civilized.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with PETA’s tactics, or, to be more accurate, certain radical factions of PETA. Certain factions use violence against humans to save animals. That is just like some radical Christians who kill people in abortion clinics to save the unborn people. It makes no sense. They have crossed the line.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, your arguements are still based on an idea of force. I believe in higher aspirations than force - peace thru reconciliation, compromise, and understanding. (That’s how FFL works, and maybe the reason they are accomplishing more to reduce abortions than the religious pro-lifers.) Of course, that is just my opinion and I can only offer it.</p>
<p>
Lealdragon, I think FFL is a great organization. However, it is NOT alone in its belief that abortion hurts women. Nor is it alone in its mission to offer alternatives and show compassion. Birthright, for example, has done this for years. It is the very core of their mission. And their compassion lasts for as long as the woman needs it, with job support, childcare help, housing, education, etc. The genius of FFL is using hip, Hollywood types to get across their message and leave any religious discussions out. As we can see just on this thread, discussions about religion tend to get heated and with pro-life, the focus should be on the needs of the baby & mom, not on what religious belief is motivating the actions taken.</p>
<p>OKay, I am going to step up…I had an abortion when I was 20 years old…and I am just fine…no repurcussion, no depression, and NOW I have two wonderful daughters</p>
<p>What irritates me is that because abortion may disturb some women, that people think it should be denied to all…</p>
<p>abortion has been around since human kind…forced pregnancy hurts women…</p>
<p>women aren’t so delicate that they can’t handle birth, abortion, miscarriage, death of a child…we are alot stronger and do not need to be protected by others from our bodies, our feelings, our emotions</p>
<p>the arrogance of the attitude, well, abortions hurt women, so no one gets to have one is gawling</p>
<p>I’d never heard of Birthright. I am happy to hear about other organizations working for the same cause! They sound wonderful - thanks for the info!</p>
<p>its that attitude that abortion hurts women, it crosses to , well women need to b covered, women shouldn’t have to deal with the ugliness of politics, women shouldn’t be in the world…blech</p>
<p>CGM: You are the exception if an early abortion has had no impact on your life or your psyche. These right-to-life organizations offer support to women so they are not forced to abort or have their lives & ambitions crash down around them if they go through with the pregnancy. As a 20 year old, a decision to bring the baby to term would have brought profound changes to your life, I’d guess. Job and/or education interruption. Most likely very pronounced changes in how your family & friends interacted with you. Even if the baby were given up for adoption, it is women who bear the burden of unplanned pregnancy. That in no way implies they are weak.</p>
<p>“Surely you must see the rank dogmatism here. Others will vociferously disagree.”</p>
<p>You are confusing convictions with dogmatism.</p>
<p>A person with convictions doesn’t care if others disagree, because they recognize that other people have their own convictions. People with strict dogma do care. They don’t allow any room for others to have their own views.</p>
<p>Case in point:</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom: I am happy for you that you did not suffer any ill effects from your abortion. I recognize that you have your own convictions in favor of keeping abortion accessible.</p>
<p>I cannot ‘prove’ that abortion is wrong any more than a Christian can ‘prove’ that the bible is the word of God. That’s why there is such a controversy about abortion - it is obvious that a ‘born’ person is a person, and many people think it’s obvious that an unborn person is a person, but many others don’t, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. Until the day comes when science can prove conclusively that the soul enters the body at a precise point (or that there even is a soul, as some don’t even believe that), IF that day ever comes at all, there will continue to be disagreement about it.</p>
<p>That is why, even though I personally think abortion is wrong, I don’t think just outlawing it is the solution. I also have compassion for women in a difficult position. Even though you did not have any bad effects from your own abortion, it still was not an easy ‘choice,’ I would presume. And for every woman like you, there are others who DID suffer from physical and/or emotional stress or even serious complications, including death (which happens even today).</p>
<p>I am thankful that I’ve never been in that situation. I would not presume to gloat. It’s easy for people to make a blanket statement about something, but when they are actually in that situation, they really don’t know what they would do. Example: I personally believe that yelling at my kid and using physical punishment are wrong. But I have yelled at him, and I have hit him. I am not proud of those things. I still think they are wrong. I think there are better forms of discipline. But I recognize that I am human and there are times when I do things that are not in alignment with my highest ideals.</p>
<p>That’s the way I feel about abortion. One of my dearest friends was faced with the difficult decision of abortion after discovering she was pregnant when she’d been doing drugs. Now, 30 years later, she mourns for the child she never had. She is an example of someone who DID regret her abortion, even though at the time she thought she had a very good reason for her decision. Rather than judge her for the decision she made 30 years ago, I feel compassion for her because now she is in her 50s, has no family, and is all alone in the world.</p>
<p>
No sarcasm. I mean it. You show a lot of respect to folks who reject your ideas, at least that is how you’ve treated me. Actually, I don’t think we disagree that much, if at all. It seems our views are just about the same. I just think we have a little disconnect on the meanings of “forced” and “impose”.</p>
<p>
So, when gays try to gain rights through marriage, though such rights have never existed in the entire history of the country, are they trying to impose anything? Or when Christians try to maintain the status quo, are they imposing anything? When certain people change the law to allow the (in your view) murder of children, are they imposing anything? Or, when Christians try to stop such murders are they imposing? When certain people try to pass law to force Americans to pay for universal healthcare, though many Americans do not want it, are they imposing anything? Or, when Americans try to stop such laws, are they imposing? I am trying to understand how it is you get to the point of claiming the Christians are imposing their ideas on others, when it seems to me others are imposing their ideas on the Christians all the time.</p>
<p>
Okay, so, lets take prayer in school for example. I mean, please try to take our mind for a second and become a Christian. See the history. I know we like to think America was this secular nation and all, but while the Founders did not wish to codify religion, they certainly did wish to give religion a very free reign in the republic. In fact, religion, Protestant religion in particular, was [absolutely</a> critical]( <a href=“http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/]absolutely”>Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)) to the forming and development of the country. Now, imagine a nation where religion is so free that the presidents themselves are having Protestant Church services in the capitol each Sunday, and this is the case from the beginning, and where children are learning to read by reading the Bible. This is how it was. Imagine that each day, before school, everyone prays to God for help, and that is so built into the culture that everyone does it. People of other religions are welcome to pray to their own Gods, or no God at all, but the culture itself prays to a particular God and they are doing this by consensus. And this cultural consensus exists for centuries. Then, one person claims to have a problem with all this. So, he complains and then pushes legislation to rip out this practice from the fabric of the culture. Because he has friends in high places, they vote in his favor. Now, everyone is compelled by law to function as atheists where they once functioned as Christians. Did he impose his view on the existing culture or not? </p>
<p>
Well, I have attended a lot of these churches and have never heard it preached that America should be a theocracy. Perhaps we just have another disconnect over the meaning of words like “force”, “impose” and “theocracy”.</p>
<p>
You touched on the philosophical underpinnings that brought our government to be when you mentioned how anything is permissible as long as no one’s rights are infringed. It was because of a belief that the colonists natural rights were being infringed that they thought themselves justified in revolting against England.</p>
<p>
Of course the big question is, does the change stay in harmony with the philosophy of our government. I think we have actually made some changes that are infringing upon the rights of millions of people. And those people are not who you might think they are.</p>
<p>
But not on the rights of outcome for the individual. Individuals are free to live and pursue their happiness. But they have no right to demand and receive outcomes that please them. If a Hindu guy had come to America when Jefferson was writing the declaration, he would have been free, theoretically, to join the country, worship as he wished, and run for office. He would have been free to lobby the government to keep Jefferson and Madison from having church services in the capitol each Sunday. He would not have been free to go in and stop the services himself. He had no right to do this under the system. He would even be free to lobby the system to include Hindu services, even to the exclusion of Christian services, if the system would permit it. All people have such freedom. Currently, it is the atheists, whose non-god exists in the schools and elsewhere, who prevail. But at one time, the Judeo-Christian God was all over the place. As far as our system of government is concerned, it really is six of one, a half-dozen of the other. No one is “right” here. Today the Christians are simply contending within the system so they can prevail just like the atheists now prevail. It is their right, and it is in fact the sign of a healthy system. What is not right is when we abridge their natural right to open their mouths and say whatever they wish to say within their own churches. We are deliberately smashing the wall of separation between Church and State so that we can limit their ability to contend within the system.</p>
<p>
As long as by th word “freedom” we mean the equal ability to struggle within the system, then I agree. But if by “freedom” you mean “equal power” within the system then I could not disagree more. Atheists have far more power in some parts of our system, though they are so very few relative to the Christians. They have this power because they have been very effective in seizing the minds of the relative few people who really matter in our government. There is just no proof that their philosophies are ultimately right. They are just a these folks with ideas that, at least for the moment, are prevailing. It could be that at some other point their ideas will fall into disfavor, probably after the next World War (which, I suspect, will begin shortly after the next presidential administration – but don’t quote me on this – LOL).</p>
<p>
Well, I think you are very close to a rational system here, but to my mind, it is not as fleshed out as it can be. If it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to pick a flower. There is something else we need to factor in. When we do this, then the whole system falls into place. And then you will perhaps see that the Christians are not really as awful as you think. It is because of their way of thinking that they were among the first people to push effectively against and end slavery. It is precisely why they also are the very first to push against abortion.</p>
<p>
Well do you think legalizing it is a solution?</p>
<p>“well women need to b covered, women shouldn’t have to deal with the ugliness of politics, women shouldn’t be in the world.”</p>
<p>I disagree. I think it is the opposite. Women have had to deny their fertility in order to ‘compete’ with men. Many abortions arise not from a place of strength, but from a place of weakness. It takes a strong woman to confront society and demand that she be accepted for who and what she is, fertility and all. </p>
<p>It is demeaning to women to demand that they sacrifice their fertility in order to keep their jobs, their education, their man. </p>
<p>I’ve know women who aborted their babies because the guy insisted. One dear friend, married and with one child, called me, all excited that she was pregnant. The next day, I stopped by to visit her, and she was so upset she dug her fingernails into my back when she hugged me. I will never forget her anguish in that moment, when she told me that her husband threatened to divorce her if she didn’t abort.</p>
<p>She aborted the baby, and they divorced anyway a few months later, because of how cold the guy was about it.</p>
<p>I have several other friends who had similar situations. Another friend told me her husband shrugged and said ‘Get rid of it’ when she announced she was pregnant.</p>
<p>It’s not just teenage girls. It’s astonishing how many seemigly successful women will allow their husbands/boyfriends to dictate to them what they should do. In this way, rather than being liberating to women, it increases oppression by men.</p>
<p>Both of those friends, btw, are extremely strong women. They have strong opinions and are leaders. Yet I saw them both crumble before the idea of losing their husbands. I saw them go thru the anguish of their abortions. The first friend told me she saw pieces of her baby on the table. She said “No woman should ever have to go thru that!” while at the same time she is an activist for women’s rights. Yet she acknowledges how horrible it was for her to go thru that. She also acknowledges that if today a man told her she must abort her baby, she’d tell him something that I cannot repeat on this forum.</p>
<p>D, I don’t have time to address all of your points right now - gotta get to work.</p>
<p>I’ll do a few:</p>
<p>“Okay, so, lets take prayer in school for example…” </p>
<p>Sure, this country had Christianity woven into its fabric, along with Freemasonry. Have you ever noticed the eye and the pyramid on the dollar bill? Those are symbols of Freemasonry. Many of the founding fathers were Freemasons. Those symbols coexist on the dollar bill along with the Christian-influenced words of ‘In God We Trust.’</p>
<p>Yet, many Christians find Freemasonry offensive and even consider it ‘satanic.’ So how do you integrate both into the culture when they are considered by some to be mutually exclusive? It always amazes me when Christians say our country was founded on Christianity, yet they conveniently leave out any reference to the obvious influence of Freemasonry.</p>
<p>Maybe the founding fathers included all those symbols along with the reference to God in an attempt to convey the idea that we should all coexist peacefully!</p>
<p>Regarding prayer in schools and other public places, there is such a ridiculously easy solution: Just allow a few minutes of quiet time in which the students can choose to pray privately, or meditate, or do nothing at all. The idea that prayer can be prohibited is ridiculous, because prayer is something that happens in the mind, so there is no way to stop it. People should not feel threatened because it is impossible to take their faith from them. Their faith is secure in their minds and souls regardless of what happens on the outside.</p>
<p>As for reading the bible in school, well I ask you this: How would the Christians feel if the schools spent equal amounts of time reading the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Law of One, and some New Age teachings, and some Pagan teachings?</p>
<p>Ah, didn’t think they’d go for that.</p>
<p>“ou show a lot of respect to folks who reject your ideas”</p>
<p>Thank you! I appreciate it!</p>
<p>
Well, that is just it. We live in a sealed system, IF we limit what we respect as “knowledge” to only that which engages our five senses. My kid has argued really persuasively how within such a system, we can’t know a blinking thing. I find that kinda freaky, and a bit scary. It means if the Bible really is true, we cannot possibly perceive its truth. There actually has to be an extrasensory source of knowledge such as faith if we are to perceive God. We really have a binary choice here, and both are based on faith (though obviously not the same kind of faith). Either we will not acknowledge nonsense (stuff that can’t be sensed, like God), or nonsense is going to hafta get over our sense limitations and make itself known to us by other means. I mean, I am talking about a radical change in reality here, so that we can sense what is naturally impossible to sense. Evangelicals call this being “born again”. If we are just gonna rely on the sensible, well, it seems to me we still take a leap of faith. I think its prudent to take it all seriously and let everyone contend equally. I’m just not confident enough to do anything else. But hey, that’s just how I see it.</p>
<p>Been nice, friend.</p>
<p>“What is not right is when we abridge their natural right to open their mouths and say whatever they wish to say within their own churches.”</p>
<p>How is that happening? I’ve not heard of any restrictions on what they can say in their own churches.</p>
<p>I personally find it despicable that politics is using religion to further their goals. One of my friends told me that she voted for bush simply because her church led her to believe that she HAD to vote for him just because he claimed to be a Christian. She admitted that she never even looked at the issues herself at all.</p>
<p>That is just an example of how corruption seems to always find its way into everything.</p>
<p>As for God not being mentioned in the schools, I agree that political correctness has gone too far when holidays must be renamed. It’s gotten silly. Political correctness started out as a good thing but even good things can be taken too far.</p>
<p>But where to draw that line? I have no idea. I certainly don’t proclaim to have all the answers!</p>
<p>I believe in God, so I would love to see some acknowledgement of an Intelligent Being. But, I recognize that not all people do believe that. So what to do? I don’t know. I do know that many people cannot separate religion from spirituality. Since some Christians have called me ‘satanic’ for being a vegetarian, I would not want them to have the power to restrict my dietary choices. My brother is a Mormon. He considers himself Christian, yet many Christians do not consider Mormonism to be Christian. </p>
<p>It just gets deeper and deeper. I think part of the problem is the very idea of institutionalized schooling. It’s a double-edged sword. If we relinquish control over our children to others, and recognize that many of their values will be formed in school, then we have to accept that there is no way to all agree on what is acceptable to be taught in schools.</p>
<p>The issue of prayer in school doesn’t concern me because I homeschooled. I sent my son to a fundamentalist Christian homeschool co-op twice a week for supplementary classes, and when they read the bible he knew to just accept the parts that were in alignment with his beliefs and discard any that weren’t. When they prayed, he prayed with them but in his own way. It really wasn’t a problem until he was 16 and needed to be free of their restrictions about things like dating and music. So, when it no longer suited his needs, he left.</p>
<p>
Sorry, lealdragon. They are anything BUT strong if they aborted a much wanted child to appease an a##hole husband.</p>
<p>The sad thing is that he’s the best Christianity can offer.</p>