Jump to content
Obscure_Trash

Religion

Recommended Posts

I do not believe any company should have to pay for birth control.

 

To me your sex life is personal and it is up to you to know how not to get pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
It doesn't matter that it's only a few. I think that, as a public company, they should offer coverage for all types of contraceptives.

 

Sure, someone can just "get by" with applying for a job at a place like Hobby Lobby, and yes life is full of tough decisions like that, but I don't think that they should have to make that kind of choice in this case.

 

While I often stand for separation of church and state (especially in the case of public schools), in this case, I do think that religious beliefs shouldn't have been the reason for denying certain contraceptives (or any at all) in a health care plan.

I say this in sincerity with no malice or judgement: Whether or not someone believes or thinks that all public companies should have to coverage to all contraceptives has little to no bearing on if they absolutely have to under all circumstances. The same goes for thinking that some people shouldn't have to make certain decisions. That's life. Everyone has disappointments, and everyone has had to compromise in their life.

 

What the people who took this to court did was, basically, pit the mandate that all companies cover contraceptives against the first amendment right to freedom of religion. Whether or not you practice a religion or view them as important is a huge factor on whether or not you see why one's religious beliefs are enough to challenge the total coverage of contraception.

Share this post


Link to post

When it all comes down to it, the problem was taken to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled, and there you have it. Of course not everyone will agree. And they don't have to.

 

If someone still really hates the fact that they don't cover all contraceptives, they don't have to work there, or they can find an employer that does. That's all.

That ruling can be overturned down the line, though. The ruling isn't always 100% final forever.

 

If people strongly oppose it, there's always a chance of the idea being brought up again and being ruled unconstitutional. Which I dearly hope someday down the line will happen with this kind of BS.

 

Finding another employer is all well and good... If you can. But some people HAVE to take any job they can to survive and being picky about a job means being without one or one that pays lower which in the end costs them more than if they were forced to pay out of pocket for whatever that employer won't cover.

 

choose the more reasonable choice and use the contraceptives that the company DOES cover instead of going for the few that the company does not.

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

 

 

Religion is supposed to be a good thing that brings people joy and peace and hope and that teaches them how to treat their fellow people. Instead I see it used much more often to try to forcibly control the way other people live their lives or what other people do with their bodies, or as a shield for bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post

 

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

 

That's pretty vague... Too vague for me to really grasp what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could give a few examples of post-conception birth control drugs (those are the one this whole thing is disputing over) that are used for something other than to abort the formed zygote?

 

And as for those, if you MUST use them, and you have a job that doesn't cover those certain things, you will have to buy them yourself. Tough, but true.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, sorry--I realized after I'd typed it that I was getting two debates on two different sites mixed up, and apparently forgot to delete it from my post. >_> The other one was about should companies be allowed to ban ALL forms of female birth control from being covered, including ones that are preventative rather than post-conception and mistook your post for one on that site.

 

My bad.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, at least they cover some, but not everyone can use certain kinds of BC, so it's possible that there will be the occasional person who can't use any of the BC that Hobby Lobby does cover.

Say again: Sixteen. Sixteen different types of birth control. That covers a broad enough spectrum for anybody.

 

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

Nobody uses Plan B for the same health reasons as hormonal birth control, so that's a non-issue in this case.

 

Religion is supposed to be a good thing that brings people joy and peace and hope and that teaches them how to treat their fellow people. Instead I see it used much more often to try to forcibly control the way other people live their lives or what other people do with their bodies, or as a shield for bigotry.

Again with the "forcing" language. Your definition of coercion must be different than mine, because the Supreme Court decision I read certainly didn't give Hobby Lobby the right to control anyone's life, or prevent them from getting birth control, or even prevent them from getting certain TYPES of birth control.

 

Is my boss preventing me from eating because he doesn't give me free food on lunch break? Is my boss preventing me from going on vacation because he doesn't pay me when I don't come to work, and I can't afford a vacation this year? Explain to me how this is different. Hobby Lobby covers all types of BC that could conceivably be used for generic health reasons and only refuses to cover those that are exclusively used to cause post-conception termination of a pregnancy. Who is being forced to do or not do ANYTHING by their ability to determine what they do and don't pay for??

Share this post


Link to post
Is my boss preventing me from eating because he doesn't give me free food on lunch break? Is my boss preventing me from going on vacation because he doesn't pay me when I don't come to work, and I can't afford a vacation this year? Explain to me how this is different.

 

Hey phil XD

 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014...fuses-to-leave/

 

California Couple's Live-in Nanny Stops Working, Refuses To Leave

 

“But when they attempted to get her to sign a letter articulating the agreement, she refused to sign it.

“When I asked her why she wouldn’t sign the letter she said ‘It’s not legal,’ and slammed the door in my face,” Bracamonte said, according to ABC. “Once she said the word legal, I knew it wasn’t going to be fun."

Police say they cannot remove Stretton from the Bracamonte’s home, and that they have to go through an eviction process.”

 

The contraceptive part of the ACA was meant as a preventive health service to reduce the amount being spent in this country for unplanned pregnancies (babies, illness, complications etc.). It’s the law. Your analogies are invalid.

 

Hobby Lobby covers all types of BC that could conceivably be used for generic health reasons and only refuses to cover those that are exclusively used to cause post-conception termination of a pregnancy.

 

These morning after pills and IUDs aren’t abortifacients. What’s funny about the whole thing is that there’s no logic to opposing birth control and finding abortion wrong. Access to contraceptives (and the IUDs are rather effective) lessens the need for abortions and reduces the possibility of eggs being fertilized and failing to implant. Additionally, many of these people are fiscally conservative, so who do they think pays for their pregnancies and children?

 

Who is being forced to do or not do ANYTHING by their ability to determine what they do and don't pay for??

 

You act as if the managers of the companies have some significant burden while at the same time trivializing the issues that the employees face. The owners are not even a part of the decision if a woman decides to utilize contraceptives benefit in the health care plan.

Edited by Alpha1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

 

The contraceptive part of the ACA was meant as a preventive health service to reduce the amount being spent in this country for unplanned pregnancies (babies, illness, complications etc.).  It’s the law. Your analogies are invalid.

I'm really not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything, so I'll start with this. I realize that. I think the law is stupid and inane and coercive and illogical. The fact that something is the law doesn't change its nature of being stupid.

 

These morning after pills and IUDs aren’t abortifacients. What’s funny about the whole thing is that there’s no logic to opposing birth control and finding abortion wrong. Access to contraceptives (and the IUDs are rather effective) lessens the need for abortions and reduces the possibility of eggs being fertilized and failing to implant.  Additionally, many of these people are fiscally conservative, so who do they think pays for their pregnancies and children?

You should do some study into natural law arguments against BC. Yes, there is logic to opposing abortion and opposing birth control simultaneously. I'm not going to argue about that here, because moral opposition to the use of birth control generally is something that rests on fundamental presuppositions we don't share. But at the least, if one believes that life begins at conception, thinks like plan B and IUDs cause post-conception termination, which would be the ending of a life.

 

You act as if the managers of the companies have some significant burden while at the same time trivializing the issues that the employees face. The owners are not even a part of the decision if a woman decides to utilize contraceptives benefit in the health care plan.

I'm acting as if business managers should be able to choose what healthcare plans they want to offer as part of their incentives package and shouldn't be coerced into buying anything, much less things they morally object to. I'm also acting like the act of not buying something is fundamentally different than the act of preventing someone from getting that same thing. To say Hobby Lobby is "preventing" or "keeping" their employees from accessing anything is an outright lie.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

I feel stupid right now. I don't quite understand what Hobby Lobby is doing..? Are they not allowing their employees to buy certain kinds of birth control? Or what? I'm sorry, I'm just confused xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
I feel stupid right now. I don't quite understand what Hobby Lobby is doing..? Are they not allowing their employees to buy certain kinds of birth control? Or what? I'm sorry, I'm just confused xd.png

Sparkle, this is what they are doing:

 

HB is owned/run by a family with practicing religious beliefs, and they view abortion as murder, which goes against those beliefs. Their company does not, in any way stop their employees from buying or using birth control. What happened is that they do not have to cover birth control that destroys the zygote formed after conception (like the morning-after pill), which they view as murder.

The do cover all other types of birth control.

So, they are not stopping anyone from using ANY birth control at all, no matter the type. Their healthcare plan just does not cover abortive birth control drugs. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything, so I'll start with this. I realize that. I think the law is stupid and inane and coercive and illogical. The fact that something is the law doesn't change its nature of being stupid.

 

For the first part, is the nanny being prevented from finding shelter elsewhere if there was no eviction process? No, but it’s disingenuous. Same here. Conservatives keep saying there’s cheap BC at the store, or they cover other contraceptives in the plan, but the options are not the same as the effective IUD, which has high upfront costs that turn many women away from it.

 

What was illogical about the law? They could have easily argued the Commerce Clause applies to ACA, but Roberts decided to steer to Congress’s ability to tax. Scalia himself maintained that the federal ban on marijuana is constitutional under the Commerce Clause even in states that approved its medicinal use, so why would progressives miss the opportunity to expand on what the conservative justices have already utilized when it was convenient for them? Now, I think the employer-based system is flawed, but there was little chance of changing this.

 

But at the least, if one believes that life begins at conception, thinks like plan B and IUDs cause post-conception termination, which would be the ending of a life.

 

They don’t. Here’s a pdf on Plan B from the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO). Ella apparently doesn’t have that problem either.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/..._March_2012.pdf

 

The copper IUD is the only one I’ve seen that possibly prevents implantation, but no one uses it as emergency contraceptive, so the risk would be negligible in comparison to the unplanned pregnancies it could prevent.

 

I'm acting as if business managers should be able to choose what healthcare plans they want to offer as part of their incentives package and shouldn't be coerced into buying anything, much less things they morally object to.

 

They’re already “coerced” in plenty of ways e.g. minimum wage, regulations on pollutants, hiring, etc. In this case, there is a compelling government interest to guarantee those contraceptive options, and I don’t see how the company owners’ “burden” is much different than someone paying taxes and having it allocated in stuff they don’t agree. No one would go, “Woe is me, I’m so responsible for this”.

 

I'm also acting like the act of not buying something is fundamentally different than the act of preventing someone from getting that same thing. To say Hobby Lobby is "preventing" or "keeping" their employees from accessing anything is an outright lie.

 

The results are what matters. If there’s no minimum wage, for example, it doesn’t “prevent” people from getting a higher paying job, but we know the minimum wage helps the poorest significantly, and reduces the need for government programs (which end up costing money for support staff).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

For the first part, is the nanny being prevented from finding shelter elsewhere if there was no eviction process? No, but it’s disingenuous. Same here. Conservatives keep saying there’s cheap BC at the store, or they cover other contraceptives in the plan, but the options are not the same as the effective IUD, which has high upfront costs that turn many women away from it.

 

What was illogical about the law? They could have easily argued the Commerce Clause applies to ACA, but Roberts decided to steer to Congress’s ability to tax. Scalia himself maintained that the federal ban on marijuana is constitutional under the Commerce Clause even in states that approved its medicinal use, so why would progressives miss the opportunity to expand on what the conservative justices have already utilized when it was convenient for them? Now, I think the employer-based system is flawed, but there was little chance of changing this.

Still not really sure what analogy you're trying to draw. It seems a bit weak, in either case.

 

Making economic transactions coerced rather than voluntary is absurd. They could have argued it under current SCOTUS precedent, yes, but current precedent regarding the commerce clause is laughable. It's been butchered and censorkip.gif***ized to the point that it means nothing close to what it was originally intended to regulate, which was COMMERCE (i.e. shipping and sales) across state lines. The idea that something could be regulated under the commerce clause just because it could be done in several different states would have been laughable to the framers.

 

They don’t. Here’s a pdf on Plan B from the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO). Ella apparently doesn’t have that problem either.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/..._March_2012.pdf

 

The copper IUD is the only one I’ve seen that possibly prevents implantation, but no one uses it as emergency contraceptive, so the risk would be negligible in comparison to the unplanned pregnancies it could prevent.

I don't know enough about the medical science to argue this one way or the other, but that is a point of debate, is it not? If it weren't, there would be no reason for people to be opposed to plan b any more than they are opposed to other forms of BC.

 

They’re already “coerced” in plenty of ways e.g. minimum wage, regulations on pollutants, hiring, etc. In this case, there is a compelling government interest to guarantee those contraceptive options, and I don’t see how the company owners’ “burden” is much different than someone paying taxes and having it allocated in stuff they don’t agree. No one would go, “Woe is me, I’m so responsible for this”.

I think minimum wage is ridiculous and harmful to the economy. I believe there are better ways to deal with environmental issues than the ways we are currently handling them, although pollutants are different than wage laws and healthcare laws (it's not "coercive" in the same sense to punish someone for actual harm). What compelling gov't interest is there to guarantee free access to healthcare?? How do you even define a "compelling government interest"? The Supreme Court never did, but they still use it as a legal test. Funny how that works.

 

The government taking my money by force and using it for bad things is not the same thing as the government forcing me to use the money in my possession for bad things.

 

The results are what matters.  If there’s no minimum wage, for example, it doesn’t “prevent” people from getting a higher paying job, but we know the minimum wage helps the poorest significantly, and reduces the need for government programs (which end up costing money for support staff).

I would beg to differ about whether or not we "know" anything of the sort, but that's a discussion fit for another discussion board.

Share this post


Link to post
The government taking my money by force and using it for bad things is not the same thing as the government forcing me to use the money in my possession for bad things.

I hope you're not trying to imply that BC (the kinds Hobby Lobby doesn't support) is "bad", because it's coming off that way.

 

I guess we can't really say anything is "good" or "bad" a majority (or even all) of the time. And actually, for that very reason of their religious views saying it's "bad" is part of what I have a problem with.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we can't really say anything is "good" or "bad" a majority (or even all) of the time. And actually, for that very reason of their religious views saying it's "bad" is part of what I have a problem with.

 

Which is why deeming the decision to cover or not to cover certain birth control drugs ultimately depends on what you believe as good or bad, a.k.a. perception and opinion. Which is what it boils down to here. It's not black and white, for any side. What you think is correct is wrong for someone else, and vice versa. So there's no definite answer here.

But an answer had to come. And you know what happens when someone gives a definite answer to a question that has no definite answer? People complain and are not satisfied. Which is what happened.

 

It will boil over eventually.

Edited by Daxillionyx

Share this post


Link to post

I know that. But in this case I don't think the decision should have been influenced by religion, and especially because they alright support various kinds of BC. That's probably mostly impossible, though.

 

I just think it would have helped even more people if they did support it, especially since I think both IUDs and Plan B pills are fairly expensive.

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

This is a tough argument, about selective inclusion of birth control types in health care benefits.

 

If you (an employer) believe preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is murder, why should you (an employer) have to help pay (include in health care benefits) for others to do it?

Cops carry guns which may be used to kill criminals. If you (citizen) believe murder is a sin, why should you (citizen) be force to pay (taxes) to cover it?

In the first case, there is a burden to society associated with unwanted pregnancy, arguably associated decades later with increased crime rates.

In the second case, there is a danger to society which needs to be minimized.

 

I would prefer to see people more heavily held accountable for what happens with guns they own or sold to others, before fighting health care coverage for any form of birth control. It seems like more lives would be saved, especially since I am not convinced that life starts at conception. Since I do not believe IUD or plan B to be murder, I think it should be covered.

 

By limiting coverage for birth control, you are essentially telling lower class people that they have fewer rights than those with money. Just curious, what are the 16 types of birth control that Hobby Lobby actually covers? How effective are they, and how do they measure up in terms of convenience/compliance of use as directed? Does anyone have a chart to compare those with the ones that Hobby Lobby does not have to support now?

 

For those who do not support minimum wage in this country, I wish you and your families could experience what truly living at minimum wage currently affords you. No one struggling to make ends meet at that income level would agree with you.

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post

Still not really sure what analogy you're trying to draw. It seems a bit weak, in either case.

 

You keep insisting that no one should see a problem because no one is “preventing” them from something, but there are plenty of examples where there are protections at the expense of others. Because many times, it’s seen as more beneficial. I’m using these examples (i.e. tenant protections, minimum wage, hiring, etc.) as rebuttals to your analogies about the boss not paying you out of work or whatever. You seem to be saying, “No one is mandating my boss pay me a vacation for not having the money due to not coming to work always (i.e. he never prevented me from going on a vacation), so obviously there was nothing wrong with the Hobby Lobby ruling”. Do you disagree with everything that’s similar to Hobby Lobby? Sounds like an Ayn Rand fantasy.

 

Making economic transactions coerced rather than voluntary is absurd. They could have argued it under current SCOTUS precedent, yes, but current precedent regarding the commerce clause is laughable. It's been butchered and censorkip.gif***ized to the point that it means nothing close to what it was originally intended to regulate, which was COMMERCE (i.e. shipping and sales) across state lines. The idea that something could be regulated under the commerce clause just because it could be done in several different states would have been laughable to the framers.

 

Obamacare is basically a klutzy way of simulating single payer system. Instead of collecting enough revenue to pay for it, it requires that those who can afford it buy the insurance directly and subsidizes those who can’t. In the end, the result is similar to the government collecting and providing full coverage. I don’t see the SC striking down Medicare at any point, and a SC ruling rolling back all of the case law would set back many and benefit a few. I think Ike said it best.

 

user posted image

 

I don't know enough about the medical science to argue this one way or the other, but that is a point of debate, is it not? If it weren't, there would be no reason for people to be opposed to plan b any more than they are opposed to other forms of BC.

 

They would still oppose it. Republicans hate the idea of easy access to birth control even though they know women have the option to get an abortion if they do get pregnant. People commonly don’t admit to facts, so it isn’t surprising.

 

The medical establishment disagrees with them. Plan B works by preventing/delaying ovulation.

 

although pollutants are different than wage laws and healthcare laws (it's not "coercive" in the same sense to punish someone for actual harm).

 

How is someone dying prematurely from fossil fuel plants different than the issues that result from unintended pregnancies? And it would be worse under your ideal government because you don’t agree with Roe v. Wade.

 

What compelling gov't interest is there to guarantee free access to healthcare?? How do you even define a "compelling government interest"? The Supreme Court never did, but they still use it as a legal test. Funny how that works.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-free-bir...ewer-abortions/

 

“WASHINGTON Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.

The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday. […[“

 

The government taking my money by force and using it for bad things is not the same thing as the government forcing me to use the money in my possession for bad things.

 

First of all, why should the Green family trump all of their employees? Had the focus been the First Amendment instead of a statutory case, you can easily see this running up against the Establishment Clause.

 

Hobby Lobby’s “payment” is just a component of their employees’ total compensation package, which changes with supply and demand. And boohoo, the Green family net worth is over $5 billion from all of the cheap labor in China.

 

By the way, conservatives hate tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood even when it’s not allocated to abortions (by law, it can’t). They argue that it goes into a pool of money, and then inevitably winds up paying for an abortion at some point.

 

I would beg to differ about whether or not we "know" anything of the sort, but that's a discussion fit for another discussion board.

 

We’ll take it to the capitalism thread then. ; )

 

Share this post


Link to post

I feel people resort to religion as a need for absolutism, which I suppose I understand, because a fear of the unknown is very daunting. That being said, I think it's entirely natural to fear it, because we can observe that in other species; ants don't run from us because they don't want to die. It's unlikely that ants can even grasp the concept of death. They run from us because it's wired in them to escape fear.

 

Many people fear death, and I suppose religion is a way for them to escape that. I, personally, am perfectly comfortable in knowing that when I die, I'll likely never return. Of course it's not a reassuring thought, but why in the world would I worry about what happens when I die when I have so much to do here on this Earth that I know to be true?

 

I'm not sure how I feel about others being religious. Of course I don't think that I, nor anyone else, has the right to silence that, but that being said, I feel that society suffers on a whole from religious ideals infiltrating their way into our social interaction/government. When it starts to affect how other people live their lives, or how you treat or perceive other people, it becomes dangerous. I don't want someone basing their perceptions of life and decisions and votes and emotions on an old book that's been translated many times that it itself cannot even be considered accurate, empirical evidence.

 

I think everyone has their own idea of what is true. I will not rebuke that point. However, I feel that objectivity should exist if we are to be a functional society, and that objectivity MUST be based on tangible proof.

 

tldr; I'm an atheist

Share this post


Link to post

For me, religion was foisted on me growing up. I was raised SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist), which tends to be more restrictive than other religions under the Christianity umbrella - think the abidance and restrictions of the Old Testament like Judaism, along with the belief in Jesus as the son of god in the New Testament.

 

Even being raised in it, I never 'felt the holy spirit', as most claimed to. I never felt comfortable with persistent 'god speak' - 'Praise god!' 'God is responsible for...' etc. and so on. I felt like an outsider, because my interests never really jived with the doctrine., and I found many int he church to be two-faced - nice to you to your face, but god only knows what they're saying when you aren't there.

 

Nowadays, I don't believe in anything, and I don't really care to figure it out anytime soon. I feel that religion played a huge role in making me ashamed of my body, and afraid of sexuality as a whole. The idea that the human body, and by extension, a natural human function (sex) is sinful and dirty and shameful, and it makes me angry that religion instilled some judgmental BS in my brain that i sometimes have a hard time shedding.

 

It's because of this that I feel that religion, by and large, is nothing more than indoctrination, used to control the sheep - er, I mean flock, and give them a sense of superiority above the perceived sinners. I cringe especially when I hear of children taking vows, being baptized, pledging themselves to a religion that I feel that at their young age they can't possibly understand fully, nor what that pledge entails.

 

That's not to say that There aren't good and decent Christians out there, but far too many fail to even try to act like the avatar of their religion, going so far as to pass judgment on other people despite their 'good book' telling them to not do so. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

If someone takes comfort in religion, that's fine. But keep it to yourself, and don't foist your standards on everyone else, which also means stop trying to create legislation that people not of your creed are forced to follow and worse, that deprives people of their rights.

 

tl;dr - Agnostic here. Might be something bigger out there, but if there is, I'd prefer it not be the Christian god. He or she is a sadistic mofo, if they exist.

Edited by Omega Entity

Share this post


Link to post
For me, religion was foisted on me growing up. I was raised SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist), which tends to be more restrictive than other religions under the Christianity umbrella - think the abidance and restrictions of the Old Testament like Judaism, along with the belief in Jesus as the son of god in the New Testament.

 

Even being raised in it, I never 'felt the holy spirit', as most claimed to. I never felt comfortable with persistent 'god speak' - 'Praise god!' 'God is responsible for...' etc. and so on. I felt like an outsider, because my interests never really jived with the doctrine., and I found many int he church to be two-faced - nice to you to your face, but god only knows what they're saying when you aren't there.

 

Nowadays, I don't believe in anything, and I don't really care to figure it out anytime soon.

I feel awful when I hear how people have turned away from God because of how they were treated by those professing themselves faithful.

 

I believe that to be healthy (in a holistic, spiritual sense), we each need to develop our relationship with our Creator. However, we are all very unique individuals, so those relationships may manifest in very different ways from person to person.

 

Those who "get high on God" usually do not understand why others cannot and do not recognize when they are hurting others. I remember one girl getting extremely dejected on hearing another praising God for good marks on a quiz after not studying, when she had both studied and prayed yet done less well. Was she somehow less beloved? (No.) How is she to believe God loves all equally when she sees such inconsistent treatment?

 

I feel that religion played a huge role in making me ashamed of my body, and afraid of sexuality as a whole. The idea that the human body, and by extension, a natural human function (sex) is sinful and dirty and shameful, and it makes me angry that religion instilled some judgmental BS in my brain that i sometimes have a hard time shedding.

This is the kind of thing that makes me a firm believer in sex education. To my mind, God created sex as a gift for the newlyweds, a beautiful thing. It gets corrupted by the choices people make to abuse it. The best prevention for that is true awareness.

 

It's because of this that I feel that religion, by and large, is nothing more than indoctrination, used to control the sheep - er, I mean flock, and give them a sense of superiority above the perceived sinners. I cringe especially when I hear of children taking vows, being baptized, pledging themselves to a religion that I feel that at their young age they can't possibly understand fully, nor what that pledge entails.

Religion is a collection of people who profess the same faith. With nearly any group, there seems to be pride in the division of "in" versus "out". Jesus taught inclusion, not exclusion; it is the failings of humans making poor choices that drives other attitudes.

 

As for child baptism, in most churches it is a commitment of the parents & congregation to teach the child about God, not the child making the commitment. For older children/young adults, the assumption is they are willing to try as best they understand it. Even adults struggle with faith, whether they show it or not. New experiences and learning new perspectives definitely will change how someone thinks about their faith.

 

I attend a Methodist church, but I've said before that I'm a lousy Methodist, because I refuse to put the organization ahead of my faith. If I believe the church is going against what Jesus taught, first I will try to work out the issue with church leadership, but ultimately it is God to whom I am accountable. I will not put the bureaucracy first, and I do not think anyone else should either. Those who insist people should, make me wonder in what they truly believe.

 

That's not to say that There aren't good and decent Christians out there, but far too many fail to even try to act like the avatar of their religion, going so far as to pass judgment on other people despite their 'good book' telling them to not do so. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

If someone takes comfort in religion, that's fine. But keep it to yourself, and don't foist your standards on everyone else, which also means stop trying to create legislation that people not of your creed are forced to follow and worse, that deprives people of their rights.

 

tl;dr - Agnostic here. Might be something bigger out there, but if there is, I'd prefer it not be the Christian god. He or she is a sadistic mofo, if they exist.

Why does it always seem like hypocrites have the loudest voices? *sigh*

 

I don't think it's realistic to expect folks wanting to share their religion to keep it to themselves, but I do think you are right to ask that they not force it on others. There is a big difference between sharing something you found interesting with a friend, and demanding that total strangers listen up even if they have other priorities; one opens a door, and the other puts up a wall.

 

I am sorry that your experiences with Christianity lead you to believe God is a sadistic mofo. That is nothing like how I have come to see our Creator. I hope you are able to develop in a spiritually healthy way throughout life, whether or not it is in a way with which I can identify.

Share this post


Link to post
I hope you are able to develop in a spiritually healthy way throughout life, whether or not it is in a way with which I can identify.

This is probably the nicest thing I've ever heard from any Christian ever in regards to pepole who stopped for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post

Awdz, you never cease to be one of my favorite people! c:

 

That line TCA quoted is pretty much exactly why I am a Unitarian Universalist. That's pretty much what they're all about: a free spiritual search for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
That line TCA quoted is pretty much exactly why I am a Unitarian Universalist.

I've been looking around for a religion that "fits" me. I was raised as a Lutheran Christian, and have never really agreed with a lot of their teachings. Being a member of the LGBT community and fairly liberal, I never spoke up about my beliefs on the matter and so was unhappy for my childhood and teenage years. Will you explain more to me about the Unitarian Universalist Association, either by PM or this thread? I have googled it, and attained some information, but I'd like to hear it coming from a member of the association.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.