Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

03/06/2012 11:07:42 PM · #701

I actually enjoy that Shannon almost said that the statement "whereas, Almighty God created the mind freef" to be an empiric fact.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

03/06/2012 11:16:01 PM · #702

So how does this all come back around to my jack-@ss bosses having the right to exercise their "religious freedom" over my own?

I don't hear God piping in. Just a bunch of people thinking they speak for God. Even IF there is a God, and even IF it's speaking to people. How do we know who is telling the truth and who is lying?

Oh wait... God is whispering in my ear right now. She says I should fight for reproductive freedom. Well there you have it. The lady knows what she wants.

03/06/2012 11:37:29 PM · #703

Of course we could ask the Virginia Historical Society what they think about the statute. As predicted they have nothing to say remotely close to Shannon's interpretation...

Annotation

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/06/2012 11:45:28 PM · #704

Originally posted by escapetooz:

you are a goddess!

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

03/06/2012 11:46:04 PM · #705

Missing the point. Missing the point.

Where in religious freedom does it say my boss has more than me? Is it because the boss has more money? Does money buy freedom? (The answer in the US at least, is usually yes.)

Nullix likes to keep piping in, "if you don't like it, work for someone else." Doesn't that restrict my freedom? That I have to flit around trying to find a boss that has views in line with mine to get what I want out of my health care? Shouldn't I expect a reasonable baseline of coverage NO MATTER my bosses beliefs? Seems society would get more and more segregated if this was the case. If I don't interact with religious folks at work, I almost certainly never would aside from online. We live in a shared society. Wouldn't religious folks want non-religious folks to work with them to attain mutual understanding and respect?

That's what this is about. It's not about religious freedom. I think we all already agree we SHOULD have religious freedom. The point is, when does my bosses religious freedom surpass my own? When does respecting someone else's religious freedom disrespect my own?

Message edited by author 2012-03-06 23:50:00.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/06/2012 11:53:46 PM · #706

it shouldn't why should you compromise your beliefs for someone else. it's kinda bullshit but unless everyone walks out because of it nothing will happen to fix the problem sadly.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

03/07/2012 12:14:06 AM · #707

Originally posted by o2bskating:

it shouldn't why should you compromise your beliefs for someone else. it's kinda bullshit but unless everyone walks out because of it nothing will happen to fix the problem sadly.

I wonder how this would all go down in South Korea. I once got in a fight with my boss over some arbitrary rule she was getting really angry about and she told me I had to "obey" her. I chalked it up to maybe not understanding the weight of that word in English but it doesn't change the mindset. In Korea things are very hierarchical. Your boss says jump, you jump. You can guess they have a hard time dealing with foreign employees that say "why?"

I can't seem to find out for sure about BC but I'm under the impression it's not really covered at all on insurance anyway (though it is cheap and widely available).

Wow found this article in my research. This is what happens when you have no comprehensive sex-ed and have males make decisions for females.

Birth Control- South Korea

"In 2005, the government admitted that more than 340,000 illegal abortions had been carried out, while the number of child births for that year was around 476,000. These numbers suggest that one out of every 32 fertile women in South Korea is forced into having an illegal abortion."

More proof that making things illegal doesn't stop them. The only real way to stop abortion is with preventative measures.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 00:16:25.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/07/2012 05:12:26 AM · #708

Originally posted by Melethia:

Do any of you people have day jobs?

I do... but they tend to stretch from 05:30hrs till sometimes fairly late in the night and encompass weekends...Day job I got, a life, not so much.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/07/2012 05:23:42 AM · #709

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
I doubt that either Shannon or myself are positioned at the extreme of the scale...we simply object to the decision making process being skewed by religious perspectives.

Ray, that's just not correct. Both you and Shannon roundly deride ANY religiously-based opinions that are expressed, and you both are on record as saying religious opinions have no place in political discourse. That puts you both all the way at one side of the spectrum Doc's referring to.

R.

I most certainly would not agree with the term "Any"...most comes to mind but certainly not "Any". I have no problems with the good Doc or any other person attending church and having religious beliefs, but do take umbrage when confronted with a set of predetermined tenets and dogma that some follow blindly, without question and would have this line of thinking impact on the legislative process.

I do and continue to take umbrage with generalizations that suggest that atheists are de facto "amoral"... something which one could argue is nowhere near the middle.

Just saying,

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/07/2012 09:31:02 AM · #710

Originally posted by RayEthier:

That's the problem I have, too. Some of these tenets and dogma simply have no place in modern society, and that's not even getting into the fact that it cannot be substantiated in the first place.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I do and continue to take umbrage with generalizations that suggest that atheists are de facto "amoral"... something which one could argue is nowhere near the middle.

Another *huge* problem with me.....what makes religious people think that morality is their sole domain?

And along that line, behavior from the hard-liners.....

Database of Accused Catholic Priests

This is a sad and frightening thing. Over 5600 accused, and some details as far as the outcome. Obviously, there may have been some who were wrongly accused, but I'm sure there were also those whose victims never came forward.

It's weird.....I believe in God in my own fashion, yet I couldn't be more adamant that my beliefs are just that.....mine, and have no place in either a political arena, or being imposed on anyone else. If you find your faith and belief system, and it gives you solace, comfort, whatever, terrific, but it should be a personal thing.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/07/2012 10:12:41 AM · #711

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Nullix likes to keep piping in, "if you don't like it, work for someone else." Doesn't that restrict my freedom? That I have to flit around trying to find a boss that has views in line with mine to get what I want out of my health care? Shouldn't I expect a reasonable baseline of coverage NO MATTER my bosses beliefs? Seems society would get more and more segregated if this was the case. If I don't interact with religious folks at work, I almost certainly never would aside from online. We live in a shared society. Wouldn't religious folks want non-religious folks to work with them to attain mutual understanding and respect?

That's what this is about. It's not about religious freedom. I think we all already agree we SHOULD have religious freedom. The point is, when does my bosses religious freedom surpass my own? When does respecting someone else's religious freedom disrespect my own?

I haven't been piping in for awhile. Things were getting silly and off topic. Glad it's back on topic. Granted, I did waist plenty of time composing some responses, but after rereading my response, I'd delete since it was just a rant from me.

Really, this is the status quo. Do you current have a problem with your employer and your insurance? What would happen if you boss changed health care and refused to pay for birth control. I'd bet they would loose all of their staff. However, if you found a job with EWTN, I'd bet they tell you in the interview process that certain things are not covered with their insurance.

With the current economy, in the last 4 years, I've been with 6 different software companies. During the interview process, once it came to the 3rd rounds of interviews, I made sure to bring up benefits and what was covered (I have a family with 3 boys all with special needs). If costs were to high or things weren't covered, that wasn't a job for me.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/07/2012 10:26:48 AM · #712

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Database of Accused Catholic Priests

If you're not Catholic, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'd suggest not leaving your kids with Priests.

On the other-hand, you might be surprised at the problems there are with school teachers.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It's weird.....I believe in God in my own fashion, yet I couldn't be more adamant that my beliefs are just that.....mine, and have no place in either a political arena, or being imposed on anyone else. If you find your faith and belief system, and it gives you solace, comfort, whatever, terrific, but it should be a personal thing.

If you think your belief system doesn't influence your political arena, you're fooling yourself.

okay, back to work

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/07/2012 10:45:33 AM · #713

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Database of Accused Catholic Priests

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you're not Catholic, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'd suggest not leaving your kids with Priests.

ETA: Um, yes..... I *do* worry, and care about the kids in my neighborhood, and/or my friends' children. The thought that they may be in danger from someone whom they should be able to trust is appalling.

Originally posted by Nullix:

On the other-hand, you might be surprised at the problems there are with school teachers.

As usual, you have *completely* missed the point. My point was that considering what hard-liners you catholics are, it's a serious disgrace that the people who should most be adherents to your own strictures have such a large number of their own whom violate morality at a such a level.

I don't claim that human beings don't do bad things, and I expect them to be held accountable when they do, as opposed to keeping their jobs and being transferred to another ~~diocese~~ division of the company.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you think your belief system doesn't influence your political arena, you're fooling yourself.

Zoomed on by again......How I feel about God and my faith has nothing to do with how I deal with political issues. I don't feel obligated to try and change someone else's beliefs based on my own. Again, I am referring to those beliefs that cannot be substantiated......the religious ones.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 10:57:18.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/07/2012 11:53:36 AM · #714

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As predicted they have nothing to say remotely close to Shannon's interpretation...

Originally posted by scalvert:

That this man, one of the Age of Enlightenment's most prominent figures, would refer to a creator or God does not presuppose a belief in anything remotely similar to the sort of deity you'd like to envision handing down rules of morality for human pets to follow. Jefferson was adamant that the key to a decent and just society would be found in human reasoning and compassion for the rights of others, NOT religious dogma and superstition. In other words, even if a creator is acknowledged, no god is necessary to achieve enlightenment in the wordly affairs of man... the same basic principle of Buddhists you consider atheists.

Originally posted by Jason's link that has nothing to say remotely close to my interpretation:

To Jefferson, "Nature's God," who is undeniably visible in the workings of the universe, gives man the freedom to choose his religious beliefs. This is the divinity whom deists of the time acceptedâ��a God who created the world and is the final judge of man, but who does not intervene in the affairs of man.

As Bear conveniently pointed out, "[Jefferson is] repudiating organized "big religion" that, for centuries, had lorded it over the common man." Yes, indeedy. As a deist, Jefferson accepted the laws of nature, albeit with a 17th century assumption that they were created, as opposed to any sort of revelation that forms the basis for organized religion. Without revelation, there is simply no way to know what a god wants or intends and thus no authority for a religious opinion to play a role in government.

John Adams succinctly explained the non-role of religion in government: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

03/07/2012 02:36:29 PM · #715

But as I pointed out, the Virginia Society has nothing to note about the statue being intended to keep religion out of politics. Nothing at all.

And at best your argument has shifted to the position that we should keep "big religion" out of politics but "little religion" (ie. notions like deism) are fine. If that's what you want to say, that's fine, but it's a significant step from "no religion in politics".

I'm waiting for you to mention the phrase, "does not intervene in the affairs of man". I'm assuming you are misinterpreting it. We'll see if I'm right.

03/07/2012 04:24:45 PM · #716

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I have no problems with the good Doc or any other person attending church and having religious beliefs, but do take umbrage when confronted with a set of predetermined tenets and dogma that some follow blindly, without question and would have this line of thinking impact on the legislative process.

It's not only annoying but also extremely dangerous and it doesn't even work over the long haul. All it does is help maintain power for a little while longer from those losing it. "Religious reasoning", when challenged, has lost every argument. It is of no surprise why religious leaders have had to rely more and more on dressing up their arguments to appear secular (ex. intelligent design, the cdesign proponentsists version).

03/07/2012 04:36:19 PM · #717

That's the Richard I know! Talking in absolutes. Religion NEVER wins. I like the line from the Forbes High Priest article. "Dawkinsians brook no dissent."

Wilbeforce didn't lose his argument, though it took 25 years to win it.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 16:46:45.

03/07/2012 05:37:55 PM · #718

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So you have to go that far back to find an example? Are you trying to prove my point? Besides, if you read my post more carefully I said "religious reasoning, when challenged"... Wilberforce was part of an anti-slavery group that had many arguments against slavery, one being religiously based. I find it interesting that even during those times when the Christianity was expected to be practice by everyone they still felt the need to provide secular arguments and evidence to support their cause as apparently merely citing the Bible wasn't enough.

Edited to add: The fact that they won only goes to show that the combined argument was sound and could be backed by law and that whatever religious justifications were used didn't need to be later challenged since the end result is in agreement with secularists.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 17:44:35.

03/07/2012 05:41:18 PM · #719

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's the Richard I know! Talking in absolutes. Religion NEVER wins. I like the line from the Forbes High Priest article. "Dawkinsians brook no dissent."

Wilbeforce didn't lose his argument, though it took 25 years to win it.

So you have to go that far back to find an example? Are you trying to prove my point? Besides, if you read my post more carefully I said "religious reasoning, when challenged"... Wilberforce was part of an anti-slavery group that had many arguments against slavery, one being religiously based. I find it interesting that even during those times when the Christianity was expected to be practice by everyone they still felt the need to provide secular arguments and evidence to support their cause as apparently merely citing the Bible wasn't enough.

Can you give me an example of William Wilbeforce, himself, using one of these "secular" arguments? I'm unaware of them. But this doesn't seem to matter to your point. If they used both and chose to speak the language of their opponent, then what of it? It would only be an excellent example of the discourse I encourage, one that mixes all lines of reasoning and doesn't discount or deny any particular thought.

Here's the real issue, it's taking the extreme position (as we've been talking about). Frankly, it's the hardest position to defend. I only have to show one example where it's doesn't hold and suddenly it's false. This is why you will rarely see me using an extreme position argument. My position is that religious arguments and secular arguments are both valid forms of reasoning in political discourse. You don't find me arguing that ONLY religious arguments are valid.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 17:47:23.

03/07/2012 05:51:09 PM · #720

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's the Richard I know! Talking in absolutes. Religion NEVER wins. I like the line from the Forbes High Priest article. "Dawkinsians brook no dissent."

Wilbeforce didn't lose his argument, though it took 25 years to win it.

So you have to go that far back to find an example? Are you trying to prove my point? Besides, if you read my post more carefully I said "religious reasoning, when challenged"... Wilberforce was part of an anti-slavery group that had many arguments against slavery, one being religiously based. I find it interesting that even during those times when the Christianity was expected to be practice by everyone they still felt the need to provide secular arguments and evidence to support their cause as apparently merely citing the Bible wasn't enough.

Can you give me an example of William Wilbeforce, himself, using one of these "secular" arguments? I'm unaware of them...

I don't know how reliable this is but see the second to last bullet point at he very bottom of the this page. Besides, he didn't win by himself. He was part of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here's the real issue, it's taking the extreme position (as we've been talking about). Frankly, it's the hardest position to defend. I only have to show one example where it's doesn't hold and suddenly it's false. This is why you will rarely see me using an extreme position argument. My position is that religious arguments and secular arguments are both valid forms of reasoning in political discourse. You don't find me arguing that ONLY religious arguments are valid.

Actually you do. Have you or have you not tried to argue in the past that secular reasoning owes its basis to religious ideals/reasoning? I seem to remember you alluding to that if not saying that outright.

03/07/2012 06:01:08 PM · #721

Originally posted by yanko:

I don't know how reliable this is but see the second to last bullet point at he very bottom of the this page. Besides, he didn't win by himself. He was part of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Yes, and they were largely Quakers who were not allowed to hold MP positions. But, as I said (but probably edited after you started your post), it doesn't matter. I don't need to prove it's somehow an exclusively religious argument. My position is that religious argument should stand beside secular argument. This is an excellent example of the way it should be.

Originally posted by Richard:

I'm trying to think of what you might be referring to, but I'm coming up blank. You can offer up such a time as I made such a proposition though. I only have to go up about 5 posts to see yours.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 18:02:44.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/07/2012 06:07:18 PM · #722

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Database of Accused Catholic Priests

If you're not Catholic, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'd suggest not leaving your kids with Priests.

You truly have outdone yourself with this comment.

Where is the caring element that some would suggest is inherent in all religious people. I used to be a very devout catholic and would never suggest that the plight of children should be overlooked simply because I no longer practice. The issue here is not only that there were priests preying on children but is compounded by the fact that the church went to great lengths to cover it up.

Originally posted by Nullix:

On the other-hand, you might be surprised at the problems there are with school teachers.

This is Justification at its best (no not the theological version) and a weak attempt at transference. You might want to read Bishop Suggested Concealing Abuse Evidence ... it is quite an eye opener.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you think your belief system doesn't influence your political arena, you're fooling yourself.

It might well be that his personal belief system might have some influence on his political views... that is a far cry from having organized coalitions wishing to impose their views on the collective... therein lies the difference.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 20:50:01.

03/07/2012 06:07:41 PM · #723

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
I don't know how reliable this is but see the second to last bullet point at he very bottom of the this page. Besides, he didn't win by himself. He was part of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Yes, and they were largely Quakers who were not allowed to hold MP positions. But, as I said (but probably edited after you started your post), it doesn't matter. I don't need to prove it's somehow an exclusively religious argument. My position is that religious argument should stand beside secular argument. This is an excellent example of the way it should be.

Originally posted by Richard:
Actually you do. Have you or have you not tried to argue in the past that secular reasoning owes its basis to religious ideals/reasoning? I seem to remember you alluding to that if not saying that outright.

I'm trying to think of what you might be referring to, but I'm coming up blank.

I don't remember the thread. It was a while ago. I thought it was you arguing against someone like Louis over liberty/natural rights or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 18:08:04.

03/07/2012 06:18:43 PM · #724

Originally posted by yanko:

I don't remember the thread. It was a while ago. I thought it was you arguing against someone like Louis over liberty/natural rights or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hmm. I'm not trying to conveniently be forgetful. Maybe it was the idea that secular codes have "stood on the shoulders of religious codes". In other words, they owe much of their position to the formerly religious ideas (but are now cleansed into a secular argument). That, however, is a different argument than saying the secular argument only makes sense in light of the foundational religious argument.

Or maybe I was talking about a specific issue. I dunno.