Totally agree.

DubaiSis,

First off, thank you for your response. I’m sorry that you’re bowing out of the conversation, and I’m hope that was due to my plethora of questions. I would like to comment, nonetheless. This is long enough as is, so I’m not going to use the quote function and just number these as they were in the original questions.

1.The most recent Gallup poll on abortion is found here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). I don’t see an overwhelming majority in any category, but I’ll give you the majority viewpoint. I’m assuming you brought it up because you believe that the majority should prevail. I agree this is often the way our political system is supposed to work, but I would argue we aren’t a society where right is solely decided by majority opinion since, as history shows, the majority isn’t necessarily right and can be horrifically wrong. Consequently, we have fail safes in our system to prevent that from happening and protect the voice of the minority. Even in the instances where the majority typically does decide on law or policy, it only works if they follow through with their civic responsibility, and if they fail to do so, they have little grounds to complain when the opinion of a vocal minority becomes law instead.

I’m gathering this is what you meant when you indicated that you think certain groups “scream louder”. Since you obviously don’t mean they are literally screaming the majority into submission, I can’t guess what this would mean other than they protest, write their legislators, write the media, or put things out in the media, form action committees, give money to those action committees, get out and vote, encourage others who think like them to get out and vote….in other words, they exercise their right to free speech, their right to vote, and their right of association to make their voice heard. Is this what you mean and do you find any of this wrong? Which one of these steps is not available to opposing groups? I suppose you could be referring to a group engaging in harassment since you mentioned it, but this generally results in enough negative publicity to alienate your group and make it less likely their viewpoints will be heard, so I would disagree that this particular method would typically result in the views of a minority prevailing over the views of a majority.

I do agree with you that we are and have always been a pluralistic, secular society. I believe in the separation of church and state since the founder of my denomination was one of the first in the colonies to advocate for it. However, semantically, I disagree with you. I don’t think separation of church and state means freedom from religion or, as some in my circles claim, freedom for religion. I think it means a) the government cannot establish a state religion b) people are free to practice any religion and c) people are free not to practice any religion. Having said that, I’ve haven’t seen any evidence to suggest this means that those who are religious or claim to be religious must leave the views that were formed by those beliefs at the door when they vote or serve in government. No one comes to their beliefs in a vacuum, and it shouldn’t matter how anyone comes to their beliefs as long as everyone has an equal opportunity to express them and advocate for them through appropriate political channels.

We, as a society, impose our views on each other daily in that we have created laws (codified morality) that we agree to abide by regardless of whether we agree with the law. We have methods of changing them, but unless they change, we live by them. If we choose not to use the means available to us to change laws we believe are immoral or enact laws that we believe are moral, we can’t claim what exists was crammed down our throats by a minority since we have, in effect, willingly opened our mouths and swallowed by our own inaction.

I appreciate your clarification on your comment about Christians moving to a Christian country. Besides the obvious problem that none exists, the difference in wording doesn’t change my concern about the phrase. It’s still, in effect, America – Love it or leave it. I have issues with that as I think most people, conservative or liberal, would. While at some point, if we have used every legal means available to us, we will have to live under certain laws or rules we don’t adhere to, every group who mutually holds any view has a right and a responsibility, in my view, to fight (using legal means) for the America they envision. We can certainly choose to leave it at some point, but we shouldn’t be told that if we have a minority viewpoint, we should just shut up and deal or leave – that’s exactly why we have those fail safes Without them we would still have slavery, since at one point the abolitionists held a minority viewpoint. Thank heavens they screamed.

2. No I by no means believe in terrorism under any circumstances, regardless of how moral I may feel a cause to be. I asked the question because it sounded to me like you were suggesting that only those who would typically be described as conservatives or the right were engaging in extremist actions when they felt the issues were vital, and those whom we would typically describe as being on the left did not do such things, but I’ll assume that I missed your point here and leave that alone.

3. Actually I think MysticCat did a better job of expressing what my response to this probably would have been a few posts up, and he’s more succinct (LOL), so I’ll just defer to his post on this one.

I would sooner die than give birth to a baby I didn't want. People don't get it. You are not saving lives by making abortion illegal.

We passed that law in Oklahoma, but it was overturned by our Supreme Court because it violated our single-subject rule (bills must embrace a single subject and this bill contained multiple restrictions). This legislation is being crafted by ALEC or some other sort of special interest group and our legislators are too dumb here to break things up into multiple bills instead of just submit what they were given by the special interests lock stock and barrell.

I've enjoyed reading this thread. One of the joys of teaching Ethics is that I get to witness a discussion on abortion at least once a semester, and those classroom discussions are never as civil as this conversation has been.

I was unaware of the restrictions in Ohio - thanks, OP, for bringing this up!

DaffyKD, the article you shared was illuminating. It was difficult to read, but I'm glad I did. Thanks for sharing it.

Someone up-thread mentioned that people don't live/work in a vacuum, and so we shouldn't be surprised when a politician's actions/words are influenced by his/her religion. While I think this is true, I don't think it's right. In my opinion, a person's faith should guide their own decisions in life, but not the decisions of others (unless those others have expressed a belief in the same faith).

A law which was struck down in Oklahoma required transvaginal ultrasounds.

That's fine, as long as all other politicians and elected officials also leave their personal values at the door when making decisions for us all. Of course, that might be tricky, since few if any of us compartmentalize our values in that way. So, not really realistic.

And it's not really desirable, I don't think. It's hard for me to imagine what the abolitionist and civil rights movements would have looked like without the participation of those who who were motivated by their religious beliefs.

I can't point you to any. There might be some, but I'm out of my depth there. And I recognize that to the extent opposition to abortion is motivated by Catholic teaching, agreeing to promotion of free birth control isn't likely.

Perhaps the possibility of finding this kind of common ground is slim. I don't know. What I do know is that as long as groups on each side feed the polarization and define themselves, in whole or in part, by how they are opposed to The Other Side, the possibility is nil. So, I'd err on the side of encouraging civil, respectful dialogue and seeking to find common ground on the chance, slim though it may be, that some common ground and even common purpose might be found. Even if that goal isn't reached, society as a whole wins if the heat is turned down in the debate.

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's not realistic. But I have been in a doctor's office as a married adult woman and been denied birth control pills because of my doctor's Catholic faith (she's no longer my doctor). This isn't just an abstract argument to me - people of varying professions tend to project their faith onto those they serve, and I find it troublesome. It's one thing when you're talking about a doctor and you have the choice to find another physician. But it's another when it's Paul Politician and he starts making decisions that affect people who undoubtedly don't all share his religious beliefs.

The problem is that everybody is motivated and shaped by his or her religious beliefs,without exception. (I'm counting atheism here because most atheists have some sort of belief system, even if it isn't one with a higher power.) Part of the reason we have the style of government we do is so that we can have those making the decisions have a variety of worldviews, not just one.

My question would be whether she was projecting her faith onto you or was she refusing to violate her own beliefs by prescribing birth control. Was she saying you could not have birth control, or was she saying she would not provide it? While the immediate result was the same, it seems to me that there's a difference. I'd say she didn't make any decision for you -- she made a decision for herself about what she would and wouldn't do, and then you made a decision in response that you'd find a different doctor who would prescribe birth control pills.

I see what you're saying as well -- I do think it's problematic when people want the law to reflect their religious (or other) beliefs when there isn't wide consensus. (For example, belief that murder is wrong may be based on religious values, but that belief is all but universal.) But I think the choices of elected officials not letting religious values enter into their considerations at all on one hand, and imposing their beliefs on others on the other hand, aren't the only options. There's a wide path in the middle.

Yep, and so they can have world views that reflect the people who elect them.

I don't think there's a problem with religion affecting people's thoughts, beliefs, decisions, etc., but I have an issue when people use that as the ultimate reason for creating policies and enacting laws.

I'm not religious, but I can respect the fact that other people are. In my opinion, to have faith, go to church, and pray when you need/want to is all fine and dandy. It's those people who take the words in the Bible (or whatever readings/teachings they follow) and take them so literally and think that's how things should be, and that even those who don't follow their religion should live the way they do. And of course, there are many people who pick and choose the things in those readings/teachings that are "most important," and only follow those in their most literal sense.

I'm all for gay marriage, for example, and I understand that there are people who are against it, or don't agree with it, or think that it's morally wrong (for both religious and non-religious reasons). That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell someone else who they can love. There is nothing about allowing gay people to marry that would affect a straight person who disagrees with it. And there are many people who start the argument with, "Well in the Bible, it says..." I don't care, because I don't live my life by the Bible. And we shouldn't create laws based on what it says in the Bible, either.

Look at it this way: Let's take one of the 10 Commandments - thou shalt not steal. We have laws against stealing. If one were to make an argument about why stealing should be illegal - BASED on their religious beliefs - they could say it emotionally hurts the person from whom something was stolen, that person may not be able to get that item back or purchase a new one, it could truly financially burden the person if the loss was big enough, there would be chaos and looting if nothing was done to stop it, etc. Those are good arguments for why stealing should be illegal. To make such an argument, religion would never even need to be mentioned.

Now make an argument for why gay marriage should be illegal.

I think the truly amazing thing to me is that people can question the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time; they can read a newspaper article, and they can roll their eyes; they can see a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon and deny that a plane ever hit it; but they can read a book, written thousands of years ago, which at times, talks of things that don't even seem possible or plausible, and they believe that that is the word of the world, and all who don't follow that word are destined to go to hell.

Regarding the abortion debate: as MysticCat basically pointed out, the vast majority of people look at murder as being morally wrong, regardless of their backgrounds, faith, experiences, etc. However, the question isn't about whether or not murder is wrong, but about whether or not abortion is murder. In a sense, religion should have no place in such an argument. But again, people use it as a way to force their ideas and desired policies/laws on others. I'm not saying that everyone does, but it obviously happens frequently enough for the majority of us to notice.

I'm sorry, but I've got to be honest -- as a religious person, I don't feel very respected when I read things like this:

Quote:

I think the truly amazing thing to me is that people can question the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time; they can read a newspaper article, and they can roll their eyes; they can see a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon and deny that a plane ever hit it; but they can read a book, written thousands of years ago, which at times, talks of things that don't even seem possible or plausible, and they believe that that is the word of the world, and all who don't follow that word are destined to go to hell.

I don't know who is denying that a plane hit the Pentegon (or what that has to do with religious beliefs) or what newspaper articles you're talking about (though I've certainly rolled my eyes at articles when I've known more about the situation than than reporter appeared to). But I'm not shy at all about questioning "the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time." And I can read that book written thousands of years ago and see Truth and Wisdom behind those impossible and implausible stories. While I may not believe that everyone who doesn't see that Truth or Wisdom the way I do is destined for hell, I do think that what that book has to say is as relevant and prophetic now as it was thousands of years ago. And it seems to me that some of the greatest minds of our time agree.

Sorry to unload on you; perhaps I just need to step away from this thread for awhile.

Ha, we probably all do.

My point is not to say that believing in the Bible/religion is crazy or irrational. What I mean (and maybe didn't portray very well) is that some people - a handful of which I know personally - are very smart, and they can question and interpret things in many different ways. They can read an article and disagree with it entirely. Or they can see something with their own eyes, but somehow find an explanation as to how or why it possibly may not have happened. Or they can read through 10 different internet sites, all discussing the same thing but making different arguments, and they can gather information and form their own opinion. However, when it comes to the Bible, they take it so literally and never find themselves analyzing any aspect of it. They listen to what others have said it means, and they accept it as fact. They would rather turn against their fellow man than offer the possibility that maybe what they've read isn't accurate.. or isn't relevant.. or has been misinterpreted, or what have you.

But essentially, the problem is when people use the Bible to promote hate and/or push their own agenda to the detriment of others. It's when they start quoting parts of the Bible as arguments in political discussions. My opinion is: Religion can play a role in what you (the general you) believe to be right, but it shouldn't define everything you do, everything you say, and every interaction you have with other human beings. It can guide you morally and it can give you faith and hope, but it shouldn't make you believe that everyone should be just like you, think exactly like you do, and want all of the same things that you do.

Like with SydneyK's example of the doctor that wouldn't give her birth control - I believe the doctor had every right not to give it to her, and SydneyK had every right to go elsewhere to get it. The doctor recognized that SydneyK wanted birth control and accepted that, but she didn't compromise her own beliefs by giving it to her. She also didn't stop her from getting it somewhere else. And while SydneyK may have been frustrated that she couldn't get what she wanted from the doctor, she was still able to go somewhere and get it. Neither compromised what they believed, neither "preached" to the other, and they've moved on with their lives.

Ironically, The Serenity Prayer just popped into my head, and I think it's applicable here:
God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

And it applies to everyone, whether you want to put "God" in the beginning of it or not.

Maybe I'm still not expressing all of this in the best way, but that's the best I've got... for now anyway... it's late. :)

There are several good issues in your post that could keep this thread going until we are all too old to type and living on social security- LOL. I’m not going to go any farther off topic and than I already have and delve into those. Instead, I’ll stick to the one I’ve been posting about.

People can vote for or against things for any reason they choose. There is no stopping that since we cannot know why a person is voting a certain way unless they choose to tell us, and we can’t stop them from telling us why they will vote a certain way or why they think others should without violating their freedom of speech. Whether or not it might be more politically expedient to give non-religious reasons for voting a certain way is another issue all together.

There is nothing I know of in the Constitution or the law that prevents a person from voting, speaking out, joining groups, and /or peacefully protesting on the basis of their religious beliefs in the same way any one else votes on the basis of their non-religious beliefs. There is no way that I know of not to vote on the basis of your beliefs, religious or not, since we all have them, so if voting on the basis of religious beliefs is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone, voting on the basis of any belief is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone and if that’s the case, the only solution I see is to forego laws.

You used that example of recent gay marriage laws as an example, I think, of passing legislation, on the basis of your beliefs that do not affect anyone who may disagree with the law. If every piece of legislation passed would only affect those who voted for it and agree with it that example would work, but that’s the exception and not the rule. In other words, we’ve all had a part in passing legislation we believed in and we knew would affect others who might disagree with it, but we voted for it anyway because we personally thought it was right. Does this mean we forced our views on others? I don’t think so.

Here’s an example. I live in a state where many consider themselves environmentalists and that belief system governs much of the way they vote and most of the people they vote for because they feel strongly about the environment. Recently in Portland a regulation passed that said everyone in the county had to compost or they would be fined. Some people resent the heck out of this and feel they are being “forced” to go along with someone else’s environmental beliefs. I don’t particularly want to compost either (looks disgusting, hate the smell), but I disagree that they are being forced. The environmentalists in our state have done a fantastic job of speaking their mind, protesting, getting their message out to the media, forming action groups, hiring lobbyists, voting, and voting for people who agreed with them. Those who oppose had every opportunity to do the same, but they chose not to – bad on them, but they haven’t had a viewpoint forced on them. The county voted on a law that reflected a group’s viewpoint about something they believe was a good, moral thing to do, and it passed. Welcome to America. This is what we do and the process is the same for everyone – religious or not.





*****






My opinion is: Religion can play a role in what you (the general you) believe to be right, but it shouldn't define everything you do, everything you say, and every interaction you have with other human beings. It can guide you morally and it can give you faith and hope, but it shouldn't make you believe that everyone should be just like you, think exactly like you do, and want all of the same things that you do.

It's totally possible that I'm entirely missing your point here (it's late) and please feel free to correct me, but the bolded comes across like this, "Don't tell me to think like you, but in my opinion, here's how you should think and feel about the role of religion in your life, so in other words, you should think about it the way I think you should think about it."


And yeah, we should probably all step away because we all must have lives out there somewhere that we need to get back to.

Yeah...no. I'm about as liberal as they come, but I wouldn't be composting, and I wouldn't pay a fine either. That's the most intrusive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because a vocal group gets something passed doesn't make it right or constitutional. I think you are missing the point behind the argument.