The Whispers of Troublemakers

[Coyote]

Despite the claim that this is a Christian nation (and certainly it was influenced by Christian thinkers) the vast majority of people are not Christians and never have been. They may claim to be Christians but most are not. When people say things like: "I was born a Christian" then we know that they think of it like being born Irish. But it is not a race, it is a belief system. Simply, people who do not trust the work of Jesus for their salvation are not Christians.

It is my assertion that 90 something percent of the population would most accurately be described as secularists.

People who profess a belief in God but do not alter their lifestyles in any way from the mass of secularists around them are no more Christians than people who profess a belief that their house is burning but rest lazily in front of the telly.

I would both agree and disagree with that for several reasons. One - such issues as slavery and the subordination of women are very biblical in origin.

Christianity, like Islam or other religions has a broad umbrella that covers many sects and widely divergent beliefs yet they all consider themselves "Christian" and they all can cite some scripture justifying their actions or beliefs. Are they any more or any less "Christian" then any other?

Where I tend to agree with you though is that many Christians don't really act "Christian" as one would expect if they really followed the spirit of Jesus' teachings rather than the letter. Ghandi once said something along the lines of "I really like your Christ, it's your Christians I can't stand".

 

[vyo476]

Chrsitianity is one religion out of many in this country. All are free to practise their belief so long as that practise does not result in law breaking.
In this country we even allow all the nutcases and fruitcakes to call themselves a religion. (Rastafarians and wiccans).

What do you have against Wiccans? I'd ask the same for Rastafarians but in truth I know very little about the religion.

Every group, religious or secular, has the same right to organize politically and attempt to influence public policy. Each group has the same right to support candidates who share values, contribute to that candidate's campaign and work agauinst candidates with whom they do not share values.

Here we agree.

Many people are uncomfortable with Chrsitians supporting an agenda based on moral issues. But have you ever thought about putting yourself in their shoes? (My shoes, in this case)
Would you sit on the sidelines when you truly believe 1,000,000 legal murders each year are committed? (Abortion)
Would you sit back and do nothing when sexual promiscuity is sanctioned in your kid's public school? (Encouraging condom use is a form of sanction)
Chrsitians and any other religious group have a right to influence public policy, so long as that influence is within the law.

Again, we agree. And well-put, by the way.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The great mass of christians are not christian.

On the other hand if it were not for the women's christian Temperance movement (WCTM) women would probably not have the right to vote in the US today. If it were not for the Quakers slaves would probably not have been freed.

I doubt that you are in a position to pass judgment on the great mass of Christians, or at least your Holy Book says that you aren't. So does that mean that YOU aren't a Christian?

I accept that anyone who says they are a Christian IS a Christian because I have no way to judge whether they are or not since there are more than 2500 sects of Christians in the world today. There is no Christian litmus test.

Which Christian sect do you suppose will finally take up the fight to stop the persecution of homosexual people? And don't give me that noise about the Bible condemning homosexuality because Scripture was used to campaign against women owning property or voting, against black people being freed from slavery, and against interracial marriage too, and where are those arguments today?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Despite the claim that this is a Christian nation (and certainly it was influenced by Christian thinkers) the vast majority of people are not Christians and never have been. They may claim to be Christians but most are not. When people say things like: "I was born a Christian" then we know that they think of it like being born Irish. But it is not a race, it is a belief system. Simply, people who do not trust the work of Jesus for their salvation are not Christians.

It is my assertion that 90 something percent of the population would most accurately be described as secularists.

People who profess a belief in God but do not alter their lifestyles in any way from the mass of secularists around them are no more Christians than people who profess a belief that their house is burning but rest lazily in front of the telly.

Pretty judgmental post from a person professing a religion that commands: Judge not lest ye be judged. Who made you the final arbiter of who is and isn't a Christian? Or what "real" Christianity is--or should be? From Catholics to Santeria, from Quakers and Shakers, to Mormons and morons, they's all God's chillun and you've got no right to pass judgment on them.

 

[invest07]

vyo 476
I never said I have anything personally against wiccans or Rastas. Also nothing personal against followers of Zenu, cow worshippers, meditators or the reincarnation freaks.
I did call them nutcases and fruitcakes. Clearly a personal opinion.
And Rastas are a weird Caribbean belief system in which they worship Heilie Selassi (spelling?) and want to kill the pope. Marijuana is an integral part of their worship.
Whether or not a person who professes Christianity is really a Christian is deep inside the person and unknown to anytone else. (Kind of like Al Gore and Nitt Romeny's belief/disbelief in the right to an abortion. Are they really for or against it, deep inside?)

 

[invest07]

Coyote
"Instead of trying to make abortion illegal for instance, how about work to make abortion unnecessary and every child cared for and loved?"
This is a wonderful goal but is idealistic and naive.
How exactly do you "Make abortion unnecessary"? The only way I can think of is abstinence.
And how do you "Make every child cared for and loved"? I know how I did this with my kids but every child will never be cared for and loved. To care for and love children is not in the nature of every human. Never has been and never will be. We will always have uncared for and unloved kids.
And your comments dance around one of the central issues: is it murder?
There is a huge support network out there for unwed mothers now. And if more women would chose not to abort, this network would grow in proportion to the need. There is a huge network to support adoption and it too would grow. (My kids are adopted)
Until the central issue of murder is settled, by concensus and not judicial fiat, it is my opinion that no real progress will be made in curbing the slaughter in the womb.

 

[vyo476]

Coyote
"Instead of trying to make abortion illegal for instance, how about work to make abortion unnecessary and every child cared for and loved?"
This is a wonderful goal but is idealistic and naive.

People thought the founding of the United States was idealistic and naive, and yet, here we are.

How exactly do you "Make abortion unnecessary"? The only way I can think of is abstinence.

Or we could try actually educating kids about contraceptives. Public schools these days only receive funding for health classes if they refrain from teaching about contraception. The people who go looking for abortions most often these days are teenagers who got pregnant by accident because they didn't know enough about the whole thing to use contraceptives.

And how do you "Make every child cared for and loved"? I know how I did this with my kids but every child will never be cared for and loved. To care for and love children is not in the nature of every human. Never has been and never will be. We will always have uncared for and unloved kids.

Parental education, better adoption services...

And your comments dance around one of the central issues: is it murder?
There is a huge support network out there for unwed mothers now. And if more women would chose not to abort, this network would grow in proportion to the need. There is a huge network to support adoption and it too would grow. (My kids are adopted)
Until the central issue of murder is settled, by concensus and not judicial fiat, it is my opinion that no real progress will be made in curbing the slaughter in the womb.

I think I finally understand the point Coyote's been trying to make.

Let's say you kill a cow. You're not necessarily going to get in trouble for killing that cow because cows are killed here in America every day. So long as there is a justification for killing that cow, you're fine - you're going to eat it, you're going to use its hide to make a coat, etc. Cow dead, society has benefited, and the case is closed.

Let's say you kill a fetus. You're not necessarily going to get in trouble for killing that fetus because fetuses are killed here in America every day. So long as there is a justification for killing that fetus, you're fine - the child it would have grown into wouldn't have had anyone to care for it, the mother simply wasn't prepared to endure pregnancy, etc. Fetus dead, society has benefited, and the case is closed.

Except the case isn't closed. That fetus was a human being and killing human beings is wrong.

But here is the trick: Why is it wrong? Why is it wrong to abort a fetus, which is not an individual in any sense (and therefore, according to the classical definition, not a person)?

 

[Coyote]

I think too, that legislating abortion is only a "quick fix" - you can make it illegal, but you won't end it. You will drive it underground. You will do nothing - nothing - to change the societal problems leading to making that choice.

 

[DrWho]

I think too, that legislating abortion is only a "quick fix" - you can make it illegal, but you won't end it. You will drive it underground. You will do nothing - nothing - to change the societal problems leading to making that choice.

The number of abortions before R V. W (even counting underground abortions) was far less than it is after. If the goal really were to make it rare then making it illegal would partially succeed in meeting that goal.

 

[invest07]

Roe v Wade

Remember that should Roe v Wade be overturned, abortion does not end or become illegal. The decision only returns to the individual states.

Roe v Wade made abortion legal nationally, Overturning it would send the legality decision back to each state. My guess is that the big abortion mills would relocate to NY, Mass and Cal.

If Roe ve Wade were overturned, the frequency of abortion would likely diminish but would still be legal in certain states.

 

[invest07]

The reason for abortion

Unwanted preganacies are the result of wreckless and/or careless behavior.

In today's America, there is no reason any person of reproductive age should not understand the relationship between intercourse and pregnancy. There is also no reason why they don't understand birth control techniques and everyone has access to at least one form of birth control (condoms).

Two results of unprotected intercourse are unwanted pregancy and the spread of disease. Both are preventable but only if the participants chose.

Many unwanted pregancies occur to young women. My experience from surviving these years myself and raising 2 kids is that young people think they are bulletproof. They think "It won't happen to me."

This has nothing to do with education or access to birth control. Today's kids know the facts and know where to buy a condom. Because of this bulletproof attitude, unwanted pregancies occur and diseases are spread. Every kid today has heard all about condoms from Planned Parenthood. They've had experience putting condoms on bananas. The problem is not education or access. It is kids who chose to behave wrecklessly, because they think "it won't happen to me".

And unwanted pregancies often do not fit into a person's conception of the the direction they wish to pursue with their life.

99% of abortions start with wreckless bahavior.

 

[Coyote]

Unwanted preganacies are the result of wreckless and/or careless behavior.

In today's America, there is no reason any person of reproductive age should not understand the relationship between intercourse and pregnancy. There is also no reason why they don't understand birth control techniques and everyone has access to at least one form of birth control (condoms).

Two results of unprotected intercourse are unwanted pregancy and the spread of disease. Both are preventable but only if the participants chose.

Many unwanted pregancies occur to young women. My experience from surviving these years myself and raising 2 kids is that young people think they are bulletproof. They think "It won't happen to me."

This has nothing to do with education or access to birth control. Today's kids know the facts and know where to buy a condom. Because of this bulletproof attitude, unwanted pregancies occur and diseases are spread. Every kid today has heard all about condoms from Planned Parenthood. They've had experience putting condoms on bananas. The problem is not education or access. It is kids who chose to behave wrecklessly, because they think "it won't happen to me".

And unwanted pregancies often do not fit into a person's conception of the the direction they wish to pursue with their life.

99% of abortions start with wreckless bahavior.

Actually, I find myself agreeing with a lot of that except - there still isn't enough education, availability of contraception etc. Certain groups fight the spread of education and the availability of contraception and there is a lot of erroneous information out there as a result.

 

[DrWho]

Actually, I find myself agreeing with a lot of that except - there still isn't enough education, availability of contraception etc. Certain groups fight the spread of education and the availability of contraception and there is a lot of erroneous information out there as a result.

I suspect that the accusations that some groups fight the spread of education is over-rated (not by you) for political purposes. There are plenty of groups that promote the idea that abstinence should be taught but do they really want it to be taught to the exclusion of the knowledge of other forms of birth control? And even if they do does that really matter since the other forms of birth control are going to be taught anyway.

Can we find even one example of erroneous information as a result of a group that is against a broad based sex education?

Could or should condoms be any more available than one's nearest store? For about three bucks a person can go to many many stores and get three pretty easily. Can't afford three bucks? Try oral or abstinence.