Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[boost]

Banana, very good points.

In the USA, and probably most of western Europe, the politically correct line is that "the vast majority of muslims are non-violent". ANd that's probably true if you never leave the west. However, it's demonstrably NOT true when you look at the religion as a whole.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you think that most Muslims outside of the West actively are violent (in a capacity greater than other comparable populations)? Or do you think the support for violence performed by a minority is greater? If I'm not mistaken the polls show the latter, but disturbingly not by much-- meaning, Muslims in the West support killings of non military targets to a disturbing degree. An example would be the polls done on whether a cartoonist that depicts Muhammed should be killed for doing so.

As to your point about whether it's a religion or a political ideology or both: This again is a place that apologists like to hang out. The religion explicitly claims politics as within it's domain. And so you cannot separate the actions of one from the other. Of course that goes for the good and the bad done under the banner of political Islam. It's just that I think on balance it is harm that is done.

[BananaStand]

I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you think that most Muslims outside of the West actively are violent (in a capacity greater than other comparable populations)? Or do you think the support for violence performed by a minority is greater?

Does it matter? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I was raised catholic, but very little of it actually "landed" with me. Though one particular mass does stand out. I might be fuzzy on the details because I was only about 12 at the time. But basically, some religious zealot got a hold of a gun, and some bullets, and used them to shoot up an abortion clinic.

The priest that day gave a sermon urging people to NOT engage in any discussion of abortion. Do not exploit a tragedy for your own political ends. Do not succumb to the reflexive urge to say "We denounce the shooting, but those people would be alive if they didn't try to make a living killing babies". Just stop at "we denounce the shooting".

Like I said, my memory is fuzzy, but the moral of the story is, someone isn't your enemy just because of differing political beliefs. Escalating a disagreement to the level of hatred, and then to level of killing is NOT what this religion is about. I also feel there was some call for remorse in that sermon. Every person in that church is part of a religion that peddled ALOT of hateful rhetoric about abortion, so they should carry some blame for the one fringe individual who took it too far.

If this was happening in mosques across the world, then I guarantee you that the polls would not show massive amounts of support for violence among muslims the way they do now.

Every time a Muslim does something bad, the religion sends out a spokesperson saying "please don't pin this on the entire religion of islam" which is just code for "Don't say anything bad about my religion or I will brand you a racist"

Where is the voice of islam saying the things my catholic priest said? Where is the pro-active preaching of peace? There's no way that exists with any prevalence among the 1 billion + muslims in the world if nearly a third of them have no problem putting a backpack of explosives on a bus next to a baby.

[boost]

As an aside, it's interesting to think about the psychology of pro-lifers who don't bomb clinics. If their stated beliefs are to be trusted, aren't they essentially the germans who sat by as the holocaust was perpetrated?

[BananaStand]

As an aside, it's interesting to think about the psychology of pro-lifers who don't bomb clinics. If their stated beliefs are to be trusted, aren't they essentially the germans who sat by as the holocaust was perpetrated?

I guess so. though I think you're actually referring to a very tiny slice of the population though.

It's my belief that even people who claim to be pro-life, are only referring to the choice they would make themselves. I think if you took a poll that asked "Should the government make laws forcing people to choose life", I think you'd find that some 90%-95% of people are actually prochoice

Which is why I always roll my eyes when some liberal is ranting about how Republicans want to overturn roe v wade. That's never gonna happen, and almost no one wants it to.

[boost]

I guess so. though I think you're actually referring to a very tiny slice of the population though.

It's my belief that even people who claim to be pro-life, are only referring to the choice they would make themselves. I think if you took a poll that asked "Should the government make laws forcing people to choose life", I think you'd find that some 90%-95% of people are actually prochoice

Which is why I always roll my eyes when some liberal is ranting about how Republicans want to overturn roe v wade. That's never gonna happen, and almost no one wants it to.

Right, except for the fact that Roe V Wade is being overturned right now. It's just not going through the procedural path you have your eyes set on. If abortion is technically legal, but rendered inaccessible, what good is the fact that Roe V Wade remains on the books? Further, this is being done with great cost to healthcare since one of the principle ways it is being done is by defunding Planned Parenthood. This scores massive political points with the evangelical base, but in reality abortion is only a fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. It is a healthcare provider predominantly for women, but also for men as well for testing and treatment of STDs for example.

Interestingly this really ties into our conversation about how a supported (however tacitly) minority can cause great harm and ultimately the majority should be held to account for what they've enabled (intentionally or not.)

Btw, you idea about people actually expressing their personal preference should they be in that situation as opposed to a desire to ban abortion had never occurred to me. It does make a lot of sense if true though-- the emotional weight of considering being in the situation can be so heavy that you fail to answer the question at hand and instead answer the related one regarding your personal preference.

[BananaStand]

Right, except for the fact that Roe V Wade is being overturned right now. It's just not going through the procedural path you have your eyes set on.

I'm about 70% in disagreement.

Yes, I understand that many state governments out there are trying to pass laws that impose regulations on abortions, and in most cases that makes them less accessible. That's actually not an issue unique to abortion. Government regulations fuck up a lot of things. The question is in the intent of the law.

There is some merit to the notion that extreme evangelical lawmakers are sabotaging the delivery of abortions. Fine. That's why I only 70% disagree.

However, some of these regulations make sense. In many cases, they're just extending existing medical regulations onto the abortion providers. Why shouldn't an abortion clinic be held to the same standards of cleanliness as a dentist office? Aren't patients better served if the doctors performing this procedure have admitting privileges at a local hospital? Is it really too much to ask these clinics to have doorways large enough for standard hospital beds to get through?

Now I believe I understand the rebuttal to these measures. Mostly it amounts to a pile of statistics that say that the incidents these regulations seek to prevent are minimal. Abortion is a simple procedure, complications almost never happen, and all this red tape is unnecessary.

The re-re-buttal to that is that the few incidents that have happened, have been horrendous. There are abortion clinics out there that cut corners, put patients at risk, and are essentially exploiting very poor and very vulnerable people. Kermit Gosnell was in business amid shocking complaints for 20 years before anyone did anything about it. There is merit to the argument that these regulations don't have to be about solving existing problems. They are viable preventative measures against catastrophe.

The problem is that the well-meaning measures are treated as ill-meaning, every single time. I think that creates a bit of an illusion that Roe V Wade is under heavier attack than it really is.

I'm really not shedding any tears if some clinics have to close. It's not that big of a country. I find it very hard to believe that anyone lives more than $300 in travel costs away from a clinic. And if that's too much money....condoms are a buck.

With regard to Planned Parenthood....what did they expect? Their opposition really only has a problem with 10% (or whatever the number is) of the services PP provides. Fine. True statement. But then PP decided to take that one controversial thing they do, and turned into the name of the business. That's just a dick move. I'd bet anything that PP would run into a lot less trouble if they just change the name of the place to "Uncle Sam's Vagina Wash"

With regard to funding PP. Personally, I prefer de-funding it. And I'm very much pro-choice. I am pro-choice but I understand that the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is murky, and other positions on the issue exist. And it's clear that this issue is a hugely divisive one with heavy moral questions that may not ever be possible to answer. It's inappropriate to draw parallels to other issues. Nothing is more controversial than abortion. Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to pick a side. I'd prefer a hands off approach that says "we're not gonna outlaw abortions, but we're gonna leave it to the states and the free market to pay for it". So if people in New York want to fund the program, and people in Missouri don't.....then New York will pay for it, and Missouri won't. What's wrong with that?