Religion on the Left and Right

Alias said:
As a Christian, what is your opinion on abortion?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that life, and a soul begins at conception. A fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. I believe that a fetus that is viable (able to live outside of the womb, on its' own) is a human being, and should be preserved and protected. Surfactant, the complex protein that provides for lung compliance and reduction of surface tension, which allows for the alveoli (air sacs) to remain open and productive, doesn't completely form until 35 weeks of gestation. Meaning, that fetuses delivered before 35 weeks have to undergo extraordinary measures to insure their survival, if at all.
I believe abortion should be the course of last resort. Birth control and condoms should be the course of first resort, along with education and counseling.
I believe in abortion as a means of saving the mother's life, or in the cases of rape. I think abortions should be done within the first trimester.
In any event, the decision is between the woman, her conscience, her family and her God, and no other man or woman. I believe a woman should have jurisdiction over her own body and its' contents. Duh.
 
Dixie said:
Take a moment to think about this... The foundation and principles of Liberalism are all rooted and steeped in fundamentals closely related to Christianity. The humanity, caring, giving, helping the needy... all tenants of Christ's teachings. In fact, Liberals often lament that "Jesus was a Liberal." Almost everything about liberalism, comes directly from the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is found in every liberal argument and every liberal initiative. Health Care... we are supposed to be Christ-like and help the sick... it's the fundamental foundation to everything Liberal. But isn't it odd and bizarre, that Atheists and Agnostics most often are Liberals? At the same time, we are constantly told how evil and greedy the Right is, how they don't care about helping those in need, they are always looking to cut funding for some social program or 'do-good' work the liberals have established.... the diametric opposite of Christ-like behavior! Yet..... most devoutly religious people are Republicans. Isn't that strange?

Why is this the case? Why are most of the non-religious Atheist anti-God crowd, also Liberals... while, the religious zealots and fanatics are mostly Conservatives? It would seem, by the party policies and principles, it should be the other way around. It would make sense if Atheists and Agnostics weren't interested in helping the needy, didn't care if school kids starved, or old people had to eat dog food.... and it would seem that Christians and religious faithful, would be more inclined to want to be Christ-like and benevolent to the needy. It's strange and odd that it's the other way around, don't you think?

Oh now, before you all jump in on this, let me clarify, I am not speaking in absolutes by any means, don't take it that way. I know there are a LOT of religiously faithful people who vote Democrat, and certainly, there are many secular republicans... but in general, the religious tend to stick to the right and the non-religious tend to flock to the left... statistics will bear this out. That said, I thought it would make an interesting thread topic, to explore why there is such a strange conundrum in politics.

My take is this... I think Liberals, many times, will replace their spiritual faith in a God, with faith in Government. In short, Government becomes their God and Liberalism becomes their religion. Religious people already have a God and Religion, so they don't see government in this role. Where Liberals believe Government bestows blessings on the needy, Religious conservatives believe this is God's purpose, not Government.

Still... it is strange and odd that Godless Atheists and Agnostics would flock to a political ideology so closely tied to Christian philosophy.
Click to expand...


"Yet..... most devoutly religious people are Republicans."

Bullshit, many very vocal religious people are Republicans.

"It would make sense if Atheists and Agnostics weren't interested in helping the needy, didn't care if school kids starved, or old people had to eat dog food.... "

Bullshit, this is where you illistrate a fatal understanding of Atheists and Agnostics, you see... people can have inherant compassion and love even without God.

"in general, the religious tend to stick to the right and the non-religious tend to flock to the left... statistics will bear this out."

Bullshit, that is simply the erronous perception that they would have you believe... if statistics will bear that out, please cite them. YOU CANT!
 
poet said:
I don't believe that life, and a soul begins at conception. A fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus. I believe that a fetus that is viable (able to live outside of the womb, on its' own) is a human being, and should be preserved and protected. Surfactant, the complex protein that provides for lung compliance and reduction of surface tension, which allows for the alveoli (air sacs) to remain open and productive, doesn't completely form until 35 weeks of gestation. Meaning, that fetuses delivered before 35 weeks have to undergo extraordinary measures to insure their survival, if at all.
I believe abortion should be the course of last resort. Birth control and condoms should be the course of first resort, along with education and counseling.
I believe in abortion as a means of saving the mother's life, or in the cases of rape. I think abortions should be done within the first trimester.
In any event, the decision is between the woman, her conscience, her family and her God, and no other man or woman. I believe a woman should have jurisdiction over her own body and its' contents. Duh.
Click to expand...

Okay. Then tell us when human life begins.
 
I don't believe that life, and a soul begins at conception. A fetus is not a human being...it's a fetus.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of biology. A "fetus" is a stage of human life, just like infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric. Your statement would sound just as foolish and ignorant if you said you didn't believe a teenager was a human being. A fetus needs nothing added to be a human being, it already is. If the fetus is not human, and it is living, what type of living organism is it? If it's human and not living, why would it need to be terminated?

Let me dumb this down for you, the ignorant, such as yourself, don't believe in souls because you don't believe in God, therefore a fetus is a worthless human being who can't speak for itself, and you believe it's okay for you to kill it.
 
Lowaicue said:
If that is the real you, I appreciate your candour. Perhaps if you now showed a little of that good will and refrained from calling all and sundry childish names we might progress to adult discourse.
Click to expand...

Low, I certainly don't need advice from you on how to behave. I have adult discourse with those who wish to have adult discourse with me, and if people want to call names and hurl insults, I can do that too. Whether I am harsh and brutal in my dialogue, has nothing to do with my charity and benevolence. These are two distinctly separate attributes. Perhaps you should refrain from judging one based on the other?
 
I believe we should err on the side of life, not only in the death penalty, but also in the earliest stages of human life. I don't think that women should be forced to be incubators though and think we should treat the early developing human as a separate patient, removing upon demand and attempting to incubate ex utero. It is time to end the practice of purposefully killing the only form of human life we know to be 100% innocent treating such life as a matter of throwing away "tissue", mostly because some just "don't believe" in some magic soul infusion moment happening at "this" point over another, while at the same time arguing that those convicted of the most heinous of crimes should be allowed to continue...
 
Dixie said:
Low, I certainly don't need advice from you on how to behave. I have adult discourse with those who wish to have adult discourse with me, and if people want to call names and hurl insults, I can do that too. Whether I am harsh and brutal in my dialogue, has nothing to do with my charity and benevolence. These are two distinctly separate attributes. Perhaps you should refrain from judging one based on the other?
Click to expand...

You need it from someone, may as well be him.
 
Jarod said:
"Yet..... most devoutly religious people are Republicans."

Bullshit, many very vocal religious people are Republicans.

"It would make sense if Atheists and Agnostics weren't interested in helping the needy, didn't care if school kids starved, or old people had to eat dog food.... "

Bullshit, this is where you illistrate a fatal understanding of Atheists and Agnostics, you see... people can have inherant compassion and love even without God.

"in general, the religious tend to stick to the right and the non-religious tend to flock to the left... statistics will bear this out."

Bullshit, that is simply the erronous perception that they would have you believe... if statistics will bear that out, please cite them. YOU CANT!
Click to expand...

Jarhead, you do realize you just reeled off a lot of BULLSHIT without anything to back it up. Most devoutly religious people ARE Republicans, have you not heard of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, or the Religious Right? Why do you think Republican politicians are generally on the same side as most religious groups? Why do they advocate right to life, why are they opposed to gay marriage? It's because a substantial chunk of their base is devoutly religious and vote accordingly.

Yes, Atheists and Agnostics CAN have inherent compassion and love without God, but they generally DON'T! Any who claim to, have a self-established moral code, based on self-defined parameters with self-defined consequences of not abiding by the self-defined moral code. Man is wholly incapable of regulating his own morality, he can not be trusted to hold himself accountable.

Finally, yes... statistics do bear out what I said, if you wish to refute that, find some statistics and prove me wrong, don't demand I show you the obvious.
 
Damocles said:
I believe we should err on the side of life, not only in the death penalty, but also in the earliest stages of human life. I don't think that women should be forced to be incubators though and think we should treat the early developing human as a separate patient, removing upon demand and attempting to incubate ex utero. It is time to end the practice of purposefully killing the only form of human life we know to be 100% innocent treating such life as a matter of throwing away "tissue", mostly because some just "don't believe" in some magic soul infusion moment happening at "this" point over another, while at the same time arguing that those convicted of the most heinous of crimes should be allowed to continue...
Click to expand...


Yet when the GOP says we can't afford health care for children who - through no fault of their own - have none, it's OK to let them die, and OK for Tea-rorists to applaud death for the uninsured?
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead, you do realize you just reeled off a lot of BULLSHIT without anything to back it up. Most devoutly religious people ARE Republicans, have you not heard of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, or the Religious Right? Why do you think Republican politicians are generally on the same side as most religious groups? Why do they advocate right to life, why are they opposed to gay marriage? It's because a substantial chunk of their base is devoutly religious and vote accordingly.

Yes, Atheists and Agnostics CAN have inherent compassion and love without God, but they generally DON'T! Any who claim to, have a self-established moral code, based on self-defined parameters with self-defined consequences of not abiding by the self-defined moral code. Man is wholly incapable of regulating his own morality, he can not be trusted to hold himself accountable.

Finally, yes... statistics do bear out what I said, if you wish to refute that, find some statistics and prove me wrong, don't demand I show you the obvious.
Click to expand...

As I said Dixie, many outspoken "Christians" like the "moral majority" (its not moral or a majority) or the "Religous Right" (its not religous or right) or the "Christian Coalition" are on the right, but the liberal Christians often do not form clans that are identified by wearing religion on the sleeve, they are still liberal and I would venture to say the numbers are as large as the Conservative Christians or larger. Liberal religous people tend to not use religen in an effort to push political adgenda's.

The Catholic Church is very Anti-Abortion, yet the membership is overwhelming liberal. Many religous groups do not oppose Gay marriage, the Episcipal Church (the largest church in the USA) ordains gay' clergy and performs gay marriages. The Unity Church does the same, as well as the American Baptists and the Unitarian Universalists.
 
Dixie said:
You are ignorant of biology. A "fetus" is a stage of human life, just like infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric. Your statement would sound just as foolish and ignorant if you said you didn't believe a teenager was a human being. A fetus needs nothing added to be a human being, it already is. If the fetus is not human, and it is living, what type of living organism is it? If it's human and not living, why would it need to be terminated?

Let me dumb this down for you, the ignorant, such as yourself, don't believe in souls because you don't believe in God, therefore a fetus is a worthless human being who can't speak for itself, and you believe it's okay for you to kill it.
Click to expand...

I studied Advanced Biology. I placed in the Greater Science Fair of Houston, 1970. I studied science for science majors at U of H. What did you do?
 
poet said:
I studied Advanced Biology. I placed in the Greater Science Fair of Houston, 1970. I studied science for science majors at U of H. What did you do?
Click to expand...

I took a 6th grade biology class, and we learned that life begins at the point of conception. Do you have any biological evidence that would contradict that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top