When Southern Baptists were pro choice.... it was 1974 and the issue had yet to be hijacked.

[AU9377 4,924]

I had barely been born myself, so I was shocked at first when I learned this, but it fits a pattern that we see concerning issues to this day.  Church leaders were once very concerned that the church stay out of politics.  Too many seem drunk on the power of influence today.

 

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

[homersapien 11,362]

There are large segments of Christianity who have come to embrace fascism.  They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

I think they have no idea of just how much damage they are doing to Christianity as a whole.

Edited May 5, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,598]

50 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There are large segments of Christianity who have come to embrace fascism.  They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

I think they have no idea of just how much damage they are doing to Christianity as a whole.

Funny how that happens when fundamental extremists gain traction on an issue. Reminds me of far left extremists on the issues of authoritarian rule when it comes to the Squad and the ilk that craws behind them. 

[homersapien 11,362]

24 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Funny how that happens when fundamental extremists gain traction on an issue. Reminds me of far left extremists on the issues of authoritarian rule when it comes to the Squad and the ilk that craws behind them. 

Yeah, "the squad" is a hugely influential and powerful "organization".  Right up there with the church or even the Republican Party.

How many congressional members comprise the "squad"?    I forget.

While your at it, tell me what are they "fundamentalist" about, exactly?

 

That's a pretty hilarious analogy even for you. 

[jj3jordan 2,050]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

There are large segments of Christianity who have come to embrace fascism.  They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

I think they have no idea of just how much damage they are doing to Christianity as a whole.

What’s hilarious is you commenting on Christianity at all.  I’d listen to mom though. So should you.

[AU9377 4,924]

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

What’s hilarious is you commenting on Christianity at all.  I’d listen to mom though. So should you.

The irony is that the least Christian thing to do is to cast people aside based on self righteous judgment.

[GoAU 1,600]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

There are large segments of Christianity who have come to embrace fascism.  They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

I think they have no idea of just how much damage they are doing to Christianity as a whole.

Exactly how would you quantify that statement?  It’s almost comical how quick leftists slap the labels of fascist, racist and homophobic on anyone that opposes them.  The forcible suppression attempted by the attacks of the left is more akin to fascism than those they oppose.  
 

I suppose you believe that people of the Christian faith are not entitled to have political beliefs that coincide with religious morals?   
 

As to your question about the “squad”, I’d say that “leftism” as a whole is very similar to a religious fanaticism when it comes to many of their policies such as the Green New Deal.  I would also say that since they have actual votes in Congress that their power is more than “the church” which you try to lump as a single entity, although it isn’t. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

There are large segments of Christianity who have come to embrace fascism.  They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

I think they have no idea of just how much damage they are doing to Christianity as a whole.

Totally agree 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Christianity has lost Jesus.  Sadly, you can be a great Christian and, not follow Jesus at all.

[AU9377 4,924]

5 hours ago, GoAU said:

Exactly how would you quantify that statement?  It’s almost comical how quick leftists slap the labels of fascist, racist and homophobic on anyone that opposes them.  The forcible suppression attempted by the attacks of the left is more akin to fascism than those they oppose.  
 

I suppose you believe that people of the Christian faith are not entitled to have political beliefs that coincide with religious morals?   
 

As to your question about the “squad”, I’d say that “leftism” as a whole is very similar to a religious fanaticism when it comes to many of their policies such as the Green New Deal.  I would also say that since they have actual votes in Congress that their power is more than “the church” which you try to lump as a single entity, although it isn’t. 

The only issue is the imposition of those beliefs on others in the community.  For example, the Court has established that the right to marry is a fundamental right.  As such, no law can restrict who can enter into this government contract and the benefits that status conveys upon a couple without that law being subjected to strict scrutiny and the state being required to show a compelling interest to justify that restriction.  Not that long ago, many states had valid laws against adultery and a long list of crimes of morality. A religious group is free to make their own determination, but the government can't be an arm of their enforcement.

Part of the reason that people have difficulty discussing these things is the hyper partisan nature of everything, driven primarily by the media they consume.

Edited May 6, 2022 by AU9377

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The only issue is the imposition of those beliefs on others in the community.  For example, the Court has established that the right to marry is a fundamental right.  As such, no law can restrict who can enter into this government contract and the benefits that status conveys upon a couple without that law being subjected to strict scrutiny and the state being required to show a compelling interest to justify that restriction.  Not that long ago, many states had valid laws against adultery and a long list of crimes of morality. A religious group is free to make their own determination, but the government can't be an arm of their enforcement.

Part of the reason that people have difficulty discussing these things is the hyper partisan nature of everything, driven primarily by the media they consume.

This is a bit of a disingenuous framing of the argument.  It seems to posit that one group is in some sort of "neutral" position where their values and beliefs aren't being imposed on society.  But the reality of the matter is that virtually all laws that permit or restrict an activity are an imposition of someone's values and beliefs on society.  The argument at hand isn't whether some group of people will get to use their values to decide the laws or not, it's who gets to do so and where the lines get drawn.

[AU9377 4,924]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a bit of a disingenuous framing of the argument.  It seems to posit that one group is in some sort of "neutral" position where their values and beliefs aren't being imposed on society.  But the reality of the matter is that virtually all laws that permit or restrict an activity are an imposition of someone's values and beliefs on society.  The argument at hand isn't whether some group of people will get to use their values to decide the laws or not, it's who gets to do so and where the lines get drawn.

Yet, are you not assuming that inaction or neutrality is some kind of value or belief?  There would never be a law forcing someone to have an abortion. There would never be a law forcing someone to marry someone of the same gender or to marry someone of a different race.  Laws protecting another's right to do so free from government interference do not promote doing so, they simply protect the individual's freedom to make their own decision in a free society.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a bit of a disingenuous framing of the argument.  It seems to posit that one group is in some sort of "neutral" position where their values and beliefs aren't being imposed on society.  But the reality of the matter is that virtually all laws that permit or restrict an activity are an imposition of someone's values and beliefs on society.  The argument at hand isn't whether some group of people will get to use their values to decide the laws or not, it's who gets to do so and where the lines get drawn.

No.  You have a group that has traditionally imposed values versus a group merely attempting to be recognized as deserving of equal treatment.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No.  You have a group that has traditionally imposed values versus a group merely attempting to be recognized as deserving of equal treatment.

You're still doing it.

[homersapien 11,362]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

I suppose you believe that people of the Christian faith are not entitled to have political beliefs that coincide with religious morals?   
 

As to your question about the “squad”, I’d say that “leftism” as a whole is very similar to a religious fanaticism when it comes to many of their policies such as the Green New Deal.  I would also say that since they have actual votes in Congress that their power is more than “the church” which you try to lump as a single entity, although it isn’t. 

I  "suppose" that people of "Christian faith" are entitled to any beliefs they want - political or religious.

It's when they impose those personal beliefs on others through the government they become Christo- fascists, or "theocratic" if you prefer.

And the "Green New Deal" is a political proposition which is the right - if not duty - of elected officials to make.  And after another 10 years or so of experiencing the increasing practical effects of AGW, it won't look so quite so radical.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

Exactly how would you quantify that statement?  It’s almost comical how quick leftists slap the labels of fascist, racist and homophobic on anyone that opposes them.  The forcible suppression attempted by the attacks of the left is more akin to fascism than those they oppose.  
 

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

Most White Americans who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020

I think that should qualify as a large group.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still doing it.

"it"?

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a bit of a disingenuous framing of the argument.  It seems to posit that one group is in some sort of "neutral" position where their values and beliefs aren't being imposed on society.  But the reality of the matter is that virtually all laws that permit or restrict an activity are an imposition of someone's values and beliefs on society.  The argument at hand isn't whether some group of people will get to use their values to decide the laws or not, it's who gets to do so and where the lines get drawn.

That's true to a certain extent, but so what?  We are talking in this case about what government should or should not control.

Bottom line, in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.  It's that simple.

Edited May 6, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,472]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's true to a certain extent, but so what?  We are talking in this case about what government should or should not control.

Bottom line, in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.  It's that simple.

But the contention that abortion is the taking of a human life and that the unborn have inherent rights isn't an exclusively religious belief.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But the contention that abortion is the taking of a human life and that the unborn have inherent rights isn't an exclusively religious belief.

Not sure you can reduce humanity to the microbiological definition of human life.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Not sure you can reduce humanity to the microbiological definition of human life.

Maybe, maybe not.  My point in responding to him was this contention of his (emphasis mine):

in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But the contention that abortion is the taking of a human life and that the unborn have inherent rights isn't an exclusively religious belief.

 

 

That's true of everything. No belief or view is 100% exclusive to any one group. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

Here's a link where about 11% of self described atheist said abortion should be illegal in most cases. (also note that about 5% of the atheist in this survey also later said they have some belief in God, which calls their self described atheism in doubt, but anyway)

That doesn't change the fact that Religious beliefs have a very strong correlation to how people view the topic of abortion, and that pro-life views are very often justified by a persons religious views and beliefs. 

The most restrictive abortion laws in the world are in MiddleEastern Islamic countries (and probably soon to include places like Alabama). It's not because the people and governments in these places have a special respect for life and liberty that the rest of the world doesn't have...it's because of a very real, clear link to religion. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[TitanTiger 20,472]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

That's true of everything. No belief or view is 100% exclusive to any one group. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

Here's a link where about 11% of self described atheist said abortion should be illegal in most cases. (also note that about 5% of the atheist in this survey also later said they have some belief in God, which calls their self described atheism in doubt, but anyway)

That doesn't change the fact that Religious beliefs have a very strong correlation to how people view the topic of abortion, and that pro-life views are very often justified by a persons religious views and beliefs. 

The most restrictive abortion laws in the world are in MiddleEastern Islamic countries (and probably soon to include places like Alabama). It's not because the people and governments in these places have a special respect for life and liberty that the rest of the world doesn't have...it's because of a very real, clear link to religion. 

All I'm saying is, there are plenty of non-religious arguments against abortion or at least for certain abortion restrictions.  Writing off any talk of making abortions illegal or putting certain restrictions on the practice in place because it's religious is wrongheaded.

Also for the record, the United States has more liberal abortion policies than most of our European counterparts, most of whom could hardly be accused of being under the sway of some dominant religious group.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Maybe, maybe not.  My point in responding to him was this contention of his (emphasis mine):

in this case, the right of a woman to control her own body - the right to privacy - should take priority over others religious beliefs when considering government regulation.

I have no idea what this means.

[AUDub 11,147]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Also for the record, the United States has more liberal abortion policies than most of our European counterparts, most of whom could hardly be accused of being under the sway of some dominant religious group.

They also generally have better social safety nets.