My husband is Christian. I'm an Atheist. The kids can go to church with him or stay home and help me out. It's a mixed bag. I don't mind my kids learning about Christianity. I don't even mind if they grow up to be Christians. I don't want them to be atheists or Christian or Buddhist by default. I want them to use their critical thinking skills to make up their own minds. My parents allowed us to go to church without next door neighbour when we were kids. They all seemed nice enough. I don't take offense until religious groups want to limit other peoples choices. Have prayer groups at school, do charitable work, put up statues. But don't stand in the way of mine or my daughter's reproductive rights. I see more than one religion trying to cross that line and I will always make some noise when that line is crossed.
Could someone explain
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
My husband is Christian. I'm an Atheist. The kids can go to church with him or stay home and help me out. It's a mixed bag. I don't mind my kids learning about Christianity. I don't even mind if they grow up to be Christians. I don't want them to be atheists or Christian or Buddhist by default. I want them to use their critical thinking skills to make up their own minds. My parents allowed us to go to church without next door neighbour when we were kids. They all seemed nice enough. I don't take offense until religious groups want to limit other peoples choices. Have prayer groups at school, do charitable work, put up statues. But don't stand in the way of mine or my daughter's reproductive rights. I see more than one religion trying to cross that line and I will always make some noise when that line is crossed.
But that's what I mean about the double-standard. You want your reproductive rights to be respected, and I agree with you.
However, in this case, we are talking about religions that employee people and provide them with health care insurance in accordance with their own beliefs; this means they do not pay for that which they do not agree with, such as contraceptives and abortion coverage. I do not see this as infringing on YOUR rights; as you do not have to work for a religious organization; even if you did, those same organizations do not stop you from obtaining such services yourself; either by paying for them directly or by obtaining insurance coverage elsewhere.
What is being done here is that the religious organizations are being told that they must pay for what they do not morally agree with; furthermore, they are being told this after decades if not a century of not being required to do such.
We're not crossing any lines here; you are.
If all communities had the same options available, that wouldn't even be an issue. Except, I've seen enough examples of communities that have more limited options than I have. Besides that, an employer who can't meet employment obligations should be put out of business.
I have never yet seen a community where the only employment options were religious; unless one lives in the Vatican.
Again, intolerance. When it comes down to it, you want consideration you will not extend others. You are reasonable until it comes time to demonstrate your ability to compromise; then you show you have no such ability. The simplest way to allow religious organizations to meet employment obligations is to continue to extend a religious exemption; as has been done until a few days ago. This isn't employment law; this is an agenda. I'm sorry you don't think you hate Christianity; it's clear you do.
{Hands out Victim Cards to all who feel the need to have one and blood pressure tablets to everyone else}
For Gods sake ...
And that's about as close to a joke as I can get on this subject
.
I'll give you tolerance! Put this blindfold on and stand next to that wall. Do you want a cigarette? Or is that against your religion? Your not having one is against ours so we will KILL you! {You have to imagine the Dead Terrorist voice for that one}.
As long as we don't try and justify religion having any significance outside of a persons own home, or better still their own head, everything will be fine. Otherwise, eventually ... KABOOM!
For Gods sake ...
And that's about as close to a joke as I can get on this subject
. I'll give you tolerance! Put this blindfold on and stand next to that wall. Do you want a cigarette? Or is that against your religion? Your not having one is against ours so we will KILL you! {You have to imagine the Dead Terrorist voice for that one}.
As long as we don't try and justify religion having any significance outside of a persons own home, or better still their own head, everything will be fine. Otherwise, eventually ... KABOOM!
When groups of people form societies, they form laws to keep those societies functioning. Traditionally based on or derived from religious laws, we now have secular societies in the West, generally speaking, and we tend to value secular government over theocracies.
However, we also tend to support the right of people to vote for the rules they prefer, and the leaders they prefer who will (supposedly and hopefully) support those views or values.
Whether those views and values are based upon purely secular notions or one's religious beliefs are of no consequence; how could it be elsewise? Shall we say one is free to hold any opinion they wish and to vote that way, so long as it wasn't based on a religious viewpoint? How would we enforce that in any case?
