Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to say, with the events of the past couple weeks, the rollback of decades of progress on multiple fronts by SCOTUS (not just abortion rights, but whether religious schools get public funds, whether public schools should permit or promote religious practices) -- plus some openly religious politicians openly advocating for theocratic fascism -- I must confess that after years of indifference I now DO want to "end" or "stop" some kinds of religion a little bit.
We are limited to what extent we can discuss it here because of the arbitrary attempt to separate political and religious issues -- as if this is even possible anymore in the US -- but I will say that I am becoming a little bit radicalized against some forms of religion whereas before I was not. Because now religion isn't just trying to force its practices on persons outside itself -- it's starting to succeed at some scale.
Make of it what you will.
Agreed. The Religious right I feel have had minimal real impact on day to day life up until now.
This recent ruling has stripped many women of a fundamental right that will have impact in far reaching ways that I'm not sure even the religious right have stopped too hard to think about. It will come back to bite them, of that I am absolutely 100% certain.
Agreed. The Religious right I feel have had minimal real impact on day to day life up until now.
This recent ruling has stripped many women of a fundamental right that will have impact in far reaching ways that I'm not sure even the religious right have stopped too hard to think about. It will come back to bite them, of that I am absolutely 100% certain.
One can argue they have had more than minimal impact over time. After all, the right for a woman to decide whether or not to accept a particular pregnancy was a hard-fought right that didn't exist until 50 years ago, and the fight was against fundamentalist ideology (not religion generally; the notion that life begins at conception was actually invented by fundamentalists to oppose abortion and has famously been called "the doctrine younger than the MacDonald's Happy Meal"). In the 1960s, even Christinaity Today (founded by none other than Billy Graham) was wrestling in op-eds with the question of the personhood of fetuses. It was NOT a settled question.
No I do not think they have thought much about it. Or maybe they have, and just don't care. In Ohio the other day a 10 year old girl was denied an abortion, and told to think of it as an "opportunity". Definitionally a pregnant 10 year old is a rape victim. I mean, what are they thinking? Maybe like in a lot of other areas, the cruelty is the point of it.
Abortion is the life-saving treatment for ectopic pregnancies and septic wombs (baby dead but not expelled). In most of these states with trigger laws there are no exceptions, or the legal landscape is uncertain enough the patients needing these abortions are turned away. In such scenarios, the baby is already dead or cannot in any way be viable, and the mother's life is threatened and in fact faced with almost certain death. Again, the question arises: just didn't think it through, or just don't care?
Fundamentalists do not like tough moral choices. They want everything black and white, and collateral damage --- who cares about it? Doctrinal purity and certitude is more important than people's lives.
One can argue they have had more than minimal impact over time. After all, the right for a woman to decide whether or not to accept a particular pregnancy was a hard-fought right that didn't exist until 50 years ago, and the fight was against fundamentalist ideology (not religion generally; the notion that life begins at conception was actually invented by fundamentalists to oppose abortion and has famously been called "the doctrine younger than the MacDonald's Happy Meal"). In the 1960s, even Christinaity Today (founded by none other than Billy Graham) was wrestling in op-eds with the question of the personhood of fetuses. It was NOT a settled question.
No I do not think they have thought much about it. Or maybe they have, and just don't care. In Ohio the other day a 10 year old girl was denied an abortion, and told to think of it as an "opportunity". Definitionally a pregnant 10 year old is a rape victim. I mean, what are they thinking? Maybe like in a lot of other areas, the cruelty is the point of it.
Abortion is the life-saving treatment for ectopic pregnancies and septic wombs (baby dead but not expelled). In most of these states with trigger laws there are no exceptions, or the legal landscape is uncertain enough the patients needing these abortions are turned away. In such scenarios, the baby is already dead or cannot in any way be viable, and the mother's life is threatened and in fact faced with almost certain death. Again, the question arises: just didn't think it through, or just don't care?
Fundamentalists do not like tough moral choices. They want everything black and white, and collateral damage --- who cares about it? Doctrinal purity and certitude is more important than people's lives.
Yes, that is exactly the problem with fundamentalism. Don't think for yourself, ever, under any circumstances. It's like Michael Scott trying to describe to David Wallace what he is doing right.
I'm not sure that I qualify as an atheist....I believe that even if there is a shred of truth to the original myth, that it has been distorted, for purpose, by opportunists.
But specific to your question, no, I don't think religion should be ended. NOW evangelism? Yeah, I could definitely do without that. And I could also do without mortal men using scripture as a measuring tool to benchmark my "worthiness".
Let the bible be your guide to define the relationship between you and your god. And allow me the same opportunity. BUT STOP COMPLETELY from trying to tell me what God expects of me.
If that last part is too tall an order to fill, then yeah, religion needs to go away completely
What kind of "God fearing" church would let their youth minister take their kids to a Zappa concert?
On the scale of evil rock music of that day he would have been pretty high on most Christian's list.
At our church in that era... They made us listen to tapes of a guy named Bob Larson. His thing was all about how rock and roll was of the Devil. He was the first guy to talk about back masking.
I remember one time we went home played some of our records backwards. We got a few "Lucifer" and "Hail Satans" out of it. Then we thought of doing it with my parents records of late '50s and early '60s music.
I remember specifically doing Jonny Mathis and Pat Boone backwards. And we got about as many "Hail Satans" and "Lucifers" from their records as we did our 1970s Rock records.
What kind of "God fearing" church would let their youth minister take their kids to a Zappa concert?
On the scale of evil rock music of that day he would have been pretty high on most Christian's list.
At our church in that era... They made us listen to tapes of a guy named Bob Larson. His thing was all about how rock and roll was of the Devil. He was the first guy to talk about back masking.
I remember one time we went home played some of our records backwards. We got a few "Lucifer" and "Hail Satans" out of it. Then we thought of doing it with my parents records of late '50s and early '60s music.
I remember specifically doing Jonny Mathis and Pat Boone backwards. And we got about as many "Hail Satans" and "Lucifers" from their records as we did our 1970s Rock records.
OK, how does one go about playing a record backwards? Do you spin it manually? Doesn't it damage your turn table and/or records?
OK, how does one go about playing a record backwards? Do you spin it manually? Doesn't it damage your turn table and/or records?
I don't know how to play a record backwards. Back in the 1970s I had access to a tape recorder that used the entire width of the take for the two stereo tracks.* I recorded some Beatles songs that way and played the tape backwards.
* That's the way record companies made the two track master tapes back in those days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
