POLL: Your Religious affiliation...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I can't see the poll options on Tapatalk. God wanted it that way.

[JohnStOnge]

Things like: Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and sex education have been fought against tooth and nail by religious people. There is no reason to be against any of them, except abortion, unless religion drives your thinking.

On the deepest level, as I've said before, there's really no reason to be against ANYTHING other than attacks on your own person or things you care about in the absence of the existence of some higher power that sets the rules. But given that for whatever reason people accept certain premises such as "it's wrong to kill an innocent" regardless:

Sure there is. Gay marriage is absurd and it represents a continued codification of the idea that homosexuality is not a disorder when it obviously is. If you insist I'll go into detail as to why that's a problem but not now.

The stem cell research mentioned is not all stem cell research. It's embryonic stem cell research. To the extent that it results in treatments for adult diseases it will provide incentive for destruction of human embryos. It even creates the incentive for creating human embryos for the purpose of harvest. If one accepts the premise that there are reasons for being against abortion other than religion, there are obviously reasons other than religion for being opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

There is reason to object to the way in which the overall theory of evolution is presented as established fact. That's an overstatement of reality. Don't think it really hurts anything. But just the need to maintain discipline and stick to the rules of inference there is a need to tone the scientific community down with respect to its dogmatic devotion to "evolution as fact." By that I mean the overall theory of evolution and not the process of population changes that has been directly observed.

I don't see a reason to object to the concept of sex education in general. It depends on the content. The problem is that the content can be potentially counter productive. For example: Condoms do not eliminate the risk of either pregnancy or disease transmission. In real world practice they cut the risk of either by about 90%. If you have universal sex education that promotes the idea that condoms make for "safe" sex then you potentially can increase the overall incidence of unwanted pregnancy and disease transmission by changing behavior. It's not just "they're going to have sex anyway." It's how frequently they have sex and under what circumstances. For instance, I have a paper I kept for posterity that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the late 1980s. The authors argued that having sex with an individual in a high risk group with a condom was characterized by a much higher risk of contracting AIDS than having sex with an individual who is NOT in a high risk group WITHOUT a condom. Their overall paper was about how whether or not one uses a condom is NOT the biggest factor in the risk of AIDS.

If you have a young lady who is having sex maybe two or three times a month and trying to do it when she thinks she's not likely to bet pregnant based on when her period falls and have her start using condoms and she reacts by having sex every day while not worrying about when she has it you're going to increase her risk of pregnancy.

You have to be very careful about sex education and I frankly believe that the sex education of today is tainted by a secular "non judgmental" philosophy so that they're not really going to be fully educated. For instance they're not going to say that as it's generally practiced male on male anal sex with a condom is riskier than male on female vaginal sex without a condom. They're not going to say that from a public health standpoint, in actual practice and on an event by event basis, male on male sex is associated with higher rates of disease transmission. They're not going to do that because they don't want to cast any kind of negative shadow on homosexuality. Just like the big thing where they tried to cast AIDS epidemic as a threat to the general population in the United States when it never was. It was always primarily confined to male homosexual and IV drug user populations.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with not wanting your kids to get secular sex education for religious reasons. Should be simple enough to have sex education classes but make sure parents have the option of keeping their kids out of the classes.

[JohnStOnge]

Shorter one: On blue laws. Unfortunately, we have reached a time in history where a zealotry even more powerful than religion has taken hold. It's the Public Health and Safety Nazis. We could have no religion at all and I guarantee you there would be Public Health and Safety Nazis working towards the eventual return of alcohol prohibition. No doubt about it.

[D1B]

Just offered it. Do you want to see it?

BTW, anyone here who pays property taxes is forced to support your dumb fucking cult. How's that for working its way into government and affecting everyone?

Want more examples? Want numbers on how much your cult's tax exempt status costs taxpayers and limits state, local and federal governments' ability to provide basic services?

Wanna see how the government has exempted priests from mandatory reporting of child abuse and child sexual abuse?

How bout how the laws in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocracies impact our lives?

What about the billions we give to the state of Israel and costs to defend them?

Wanna talk about the Catholic Church spending millions to ensure Dback doesn't have equal rights?

Wanna go back in history and talk about treaties with Hitler and Mussolini? Those travesties are partially responsible for killing my grandfather.

How about the Christian support for slavery for several hundred years? This is still affecting us, and will for generations.

What's next Hen?

How about something relevant to the question?

They're all relevant.

[D1B]

Things like: Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and sex education have been fought against tooth and nail by religious people. There is no reason to be against any of them, except abortion, unless religion drives your thinking.

On the deepest level, as I've said before, there's really no reason to be against ANYTHING other than attacks on your own person or things you care about in the absence of the existence of some higher power that sets the rules. But given that for whatever reason people accept certain premises such as "it's wrong to kill an innocent" regardless:

Sure there is. Gay marriage is absurd and it represents a continued codification of the idea that homosexuality is not a disorder when it obviously is. If you insist I'll go into detail as to why that's a problem but not now.

The stem cell research mentioned is not all stem cell research. It's embryonic stem cell research. To the extent that it results in treatments for adult diseases it will provide incentive for destruction of human embryos. It even creates the incentive for creating human embryos for the purpose of harvest. If one accepts the premise that there are reasons for being against abortion other than religion, there are obviously reasons other than religion for being opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

There is reason to object to the way in which the overall theory of evolution is presented as established fact. That's an overstatement of reality. Don't think it really hurts anything. But just the need to maintain discipline and stick to the rules of inference there is a need to tone the scientific community down with respect to its dogmatic devotion to "evolution as fact." By that I mean the overall theory of evolution and not the process of population changes that has been directly observed.

I don't see a reason to object to the concept of sex education in general. It depends on the content. The problem is that the content can be potentially counter productive. For example: Condoms do not eliminate the risk of either pregnancy or disease transmission. In real world practice they cut the risk of either by about 90%. If you have universal sex education that promotes the idea that condoms make for "safe" sex then you potentially can increase the overall incidence of unwanted pregnancy and disease transmission by changing behavior. It's not just "they're going to have sex anyway." It's how frequently they have sex and under what circumstances. For instance, I have a paper I kept for posterity that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the late 1980s. The authors argued that having sex with an individual in a high risk group with a condom was characterized by a much higher risk of contracting AIDS than having sex with an individual who is NOT in a high risk group WITHOUT a condom. Their overall paper was about how whether or not one uses a condom is NOT the biggest factor in the risk of AIDS.

If you have a young lady who is having sex maybe two or three times a month and trying to do it when she thinks she's not likely to bet pregnant based on when her period falls and have her start using condoms and she reacts by having sex every day while not worrying about when she has it you're going to increase her risk of pregnancy.

You have to be very careful about sex education and I frankly believe that the sex education of today is tainted by a secular "non judgmental" philosophy so that they're not really going to be fully educated. For instance they're not going to say that as it's generally practiced male on male anal sex with a condom is riskier than male on female vaginal sex without a condom. They're not going to say that from a public health standpoint, in actual practice and on an event by event basis, male on male sex is associated with higher rates of disease transmission. They're not going to do that because they don't want to cast any kind of negative shadow on homosexuality. Just like the big thing where they tried to cast AIDS epidemic as a threat to the general population in the United States when it never was. It was always primarily confined to male homosexual and IV drug user populations.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with not wanting your kids to get secular sex education for religious reasons. Should be simple enough to have sex education classes but make sure parents have the option of keeping their kids out of the classes.

Quit reading after "on a deepest..."

JSO is a humorless Tman.

Give him credit though. He has the courage to actually say the things that conks, fundies and Catholics believe but are too chickenshit or embarrassed to own up to.

[89Hen]

Please note that in my original post you quoted I said people were trying to use it to influence policy.

Things like: Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and sex education have been fought against tooth and nail by religious people. There is no reason to be against any of them, except abortion, unless religion drives your thinking.

You can be against gay marriage without being religious. Stem cell research itself isn't the root of that problem for many people opposed to it, it's the potential for growing embryos to be used only for research. Again, you don't have to be religious to see the potential slippery slope on that one. Teaching evolution and sex ed... not exactly a government and law issue. More a school district decision. Not very high on many peoples give a damn list.

[D1B]

Please note that in my original post you quoted I said people were trying to use it to influence policy.

Things like: Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and sex education have been fought against tooth and nail by religious people. There is no reason to be against any of them, except abortion, unless religion drives your thinking.

You can be against gay marriage without being religious. Stem cell research itself isn't the root of that problem for many people opposed to it, it's the potential for growing embryos to be used only for research. Again, you don't have to be religious to see the potential slippery slope on that one. Teaching evolution and sex ed... not exactly a government and law issue. More a school district decision. Not very high on many peoples give a damn list.

Nice story, Hen. You're missing your own point again.

[kalm]

Please note that in my original post you quoted I said people were trying to use it to influence policy.

Things like: Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, evolution and sex education have been fought against tooth and nail by religious people. There is no reason to be against any of them, except abortion, unless religion drives your thinking.

You can be against gay marriage without being religious. Stem cell research itself isn't the root of that problem for many people opposed to it, it's the potential for growing embryos to be used only for research. Again, you don't have to be religious to see the potential slippery slope on that one. Teaching evolution and sex ed... not exactly a government and law issue. More a school district decision. Not very high on many peoples give a damn list.

1). End the murder that is in vitro fertilization.

2). We were far better when god was allowed in public schools.

[JohnStOnge]

1). End the murder that is in vitro fertilization.

2). We were far better when god was allowed in public schools.

You jest but there is a lot of truth in both Statements. In vitro fertilization does result in creation of members of our species followed by their termination. And the country probably was better off when the Federal government stayed out of the question of God in public schools.

What's ironic is that the first amendment establishment/free practice language was intended to keep the Federal government from doing what it's done. It was intended to keep the Federal government completely out of it. Instead, what happened is that the Courts tortured the language into having the Federal government come in and tell State and local governments what to do with respect to the question.

[D1B]

1). End the murder that is in vitro fertilization.

2). We were far better when god was allowed in public schools.

You jest but there is a lot of truth in both Statements. In vitro fertilization does result in creation of members of our species followed by their termination. And the country probably was better off when the Federal government stayed out of the question of God in public schools.

What's ironic is that the first amendment establishment/free practice language was intended to keep the Federal government from doing what it's done. It was intended to keep the Federal government completely out of it. Instead, what happened is that the Courts tortured the language into having the Federal government come in and tell State and local governments what to do with respect to the question.

There is god in thousands of schools.