Kyle Mcallister wrote:
Vortexians,
OK, this is getting a little "crazy-go-nuts."
1. Margaret Sanger was responsible for some good, yes.
and Ed Storms responded
The problem is that some people would be very willing to leave you and people with your belief system alone. However, there seems to be an unwillingness of certain religious belief systems to leave the rest of us alone.
Have you considered that G-d might want to affect the course of history, Ed? Then there is the matter of the Islamists, who want to rule the world. If you think that you'd have problems with a Christian theocracy, you'll really hate them, they make us look like liberals.
2. I am not pro-abortion for a few reasons. A: It does nothing to encourage people to stop the numerous "meet and f**k" flings.
Lack of abortion does not stop f**kings, which all the statistics and personal experience shows.
But the ability to kill people who are inconvenient does cheapen life
B: I wouldn't know if I was destroying someone who might be something very important one day.
Or someone who was a mass murder. Of course, if God wanted a person available to do something considered important, why would it matter if that body were destroyed? Many more bodies would be available. Also, if God is all powerful and all knowing, why would a body that might be aborted be chosen?
Have you ever heard of free will, Ed? Well you have the right to exercise it. We believe that free will, combined with our sinful nature is the reason that the world is in such a mess today. Some of us are opposed to murder, not to be confused with justified killing.
C: I do not have to be pro-abortion just because you say so. So many people have tried to force me to be pro-abortion that I am now totally against it mainly in defiance of those who would control my thinking.
Why do you think you are being forced to be proabortion and how is this done? Of course, many people are being forced to be "antiabortion" just because the doctors are being driven out of business.
What doctors, the abortionists? The cry that goes up from the pro abortionists every time we attempt to restrict the practice makes me think that there is more going on here than the practice of their bloody business, IMHO, their agenda is to kill humans.
3. A religious person really really must have made you mad once, Jed? It is fine by me if you are
I know of no proposed legislation that is antireligious. However, I know that the religious right is trying to make gay marriage illegal.
We are attempting to preserve the traditional definition of the word. Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah?, do you recall what happened to those two cities?
You know, if we are supposed to be sopro-women-liberation in other countries, so pro-freedom, so pro-lets-all-get-along-as-equals, so pro-<insert theme of day here> then why the HELL is it ok and dandy to hate religion?
I did not get the impression that Jed hates religion, nor do I. However, I do hate the attitude of certain religions in their belief that their God is better than the other God.
I'm savy enough to realize that the two of you are just anti religious, Ed. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that there is, however only room for one G-d and king in the universe.
If you think I amoverreacting, then re-read your posts. They were pretty damned irritating to me at least, and I am sure others. Not for your opinion, that is fine. Do what you want. But do not ever try to force it on anyone else. By legislation or otherwise. This statement (the last part anyways) is not directly aimed at anyone.
I would also like religious people not to force their beliefs using legislation, which is the common approach.
The way we see it, there is a religion called Secular Humanism, which is being promoted by the Liberals. For all their protestations of separation of religion and government, the followers of this religion are anxious to use the levers of power which the government provides to promote it.
Did you notice Parksie's reaction to the challenge to his orthodoxy? Intelligent Design just points out the absurdity of spontaneous biogenesis, but Parksie couldn't stand even that small incursion on his pet paradigm.
A major tenet of Secular Humanism is an attempt to promote sexuality immorality and make murder socially acceptable, and we are obligated to stop it. The Secular Humanists will come out in mass to attempt to stop the justified killing of a convicted murderer, but seem to feel that the murder of an inconvenient infant is just fine. They give lip service to free speech, but when they are authority, which they are in the educational establishment, are quite intolerant of dissenting speech. They claim to support the rights of women, but blindly support the most anti woman religion on Earth, Islam. Their agenda is as simple as ABC, anything but Christianity.
4. Contraception? Sure, why not. I have no problem with this. But please, if anyone out there wants to force the use of them on people who do NOT want to use them, kindly take a hike. This statement is not directly aimed at anyone.
As far I know, no one is forced to use contraception. However, for awhile in this country and even now in some other countries, condoms were not easily available because the Catholic Church was opposed.
The contraception issue makes me glad that I'm not a Catholic.
5. Are you guys actually reading this? I don't get many replies........
Does this quantify?
6. You know, the Pope just died. He meant alot to many people. (I am not catholic, by the way, but I damn sure respect them and am not going to say they are 400 years behind!) If this form of lack of respect for the dearly departed is implicit in your atheistic-utopia vision, then count me completely out.
I think you miss the difference between respect and agreement with opinion and policy. I respect the pope, but I think, for what its worth, his policy is harmful to humanity. I respect you but I do not share your beliefs.
7. If this continued anti-religious bias is to be embraced and accepted, then do not EVER ask me to show compassion towards some special interest group of to feel sorry for Muslims who might have been discriminated against in the days to follow September 11th. Why should one group be discriminated against and not another?
Why indeed? I agree, we should be equal opportunity discriminators. :-)
You finally said something that I agree with!
8. DISCLAIMER!!! This is aimed at no one in particular! (so don't take it as being aimed at you, the cost of some contraceptives or an abortion is much more than the cost of the gunpowder it took you to blow yourself to hell.
I bit of over reaction. don't you think?
Someone is clearly feeling quite frustrated!
There are more, but for the moment I am too pissed off to handle them clearly. I am sorry if the tone is
We all suffer from our past experiences and are sensitive to criticism. That is why no laws should be passed for behavior that does not harm another person. However, religion seems to think that an absolute behavior exists, which is determined by God. Hence, they want to force everyone to have that behavior. That is the problem, not the reverse, which causes you heart burn.
Religion sets out a morality which outlines the standards of behavior. At this time we all have free will, and compliance is optional.
Jed, you believe science and religion cannot coexist. This isn't a belief, you are stating something as
I think Jed was making the general observation that logic based on science has a hard time with faith based on religion. If you can, as many people do, occupy both worlds without conflict, you are very much like most people.
Including Isaac Newton and many others who laid the foundations of scientific logic that you admire so much.
Sorry if this offended anyone. But maybe it is time those people who quietly keep getting offended themselves say something.
No offense taken.
and I hope you will excuse my religious zealotry too.
Regards, Ed
Regards, --Kyle
Thomas
