The Mormons aren’t a major religion? To get to the highest level of heaven, you have to have kids. For those kids to get to the highest level, they have to have kids. And so on. Eventually there’s a generation that’s going to get screwed.
Furthermore, there are churches where full membership requires that you get a certain number of recruits.
“She’s not in Congress, is she?” is actually a pretty poor commentary on your grasp of how the government of the United States is composed. The individual who asked why can’t our laws be based on the Bible certainly, in this case, isn’t in Congress; however, she will be (or already is) part of the voting population and there are many people like her who want, and therefore vote for, candidates for office who will attempt to legislate that view of society.
The Ryan: Warn someone the next time you make a post like that. I just woke up at 3 am and read your comment about the LDS being a Ponzi scheme. That’s far too early to read something that silly! You may think you have a grasp on what the doctrinal requirements for entry into the Celestial Kingdom are, but you greatly oversimplified, and thus got it wrong, said criteria. Do yourself a favour and cruise over to http://www.lds.org for more information.
Just a question, do you get your panties in a twist because they are arrogant or because they are arrogant christians? That is, would you have started a rant on Jews for foreskins or only started a rant about arrogant Jews for foreskins?
I know this is hijacking this thread, but, no, my point is exactly that there is (according to Car and Driver, who provided cites, as I’m unfornately not doing here) evidence that carpool lanes overall DO NOT decreace traffic problems.
Whether they do or not is a topic for another thread, but at least I get to clear up that.
That’s getting close to the point I was making: You’re not the only person in this society, and there are going to be differences in values and opinions.
Well, I might feel differently if I were convinced that overall it was worth it overall to the environment, but no, I can’t in fact make use of it, because no one I know is going that direction.
Cardinal: What I meant was that Christianity for long periods of time was forced on people by threat of physical violence and the Church institution took to not only aggressive proselytizing but aggressive elimination of competing ideologies. “Blessed are the peacemakers” might as well be “blessed are those that enforce peace through fear and imposed ignorance.”
Since apparently nobody who wished to post picked up on Sqweels point but me, the distinction is:
A social standard based on objectively verifiable facts is one that can be enforced on the members of the culture enacting it. Examples abound; the HOV lane question, cited above as an example, is verifiable or falsifiable on the basis of whether the lane does in fact contribute to gas economy and/or minimization of traffic holdups.
One subject to dispute, as in one based on belief issues, properly should not be so enforced. Regardless of whether the beliefs are “right” or not. This applies to the Taliban and to conservative Christianity equally.
Do not bring up the Ten Commandments here; the social standard is the “inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and laws against murder, theft, etc., are violations of that social standard, regardless of whether it may have been derived from Old Testament thinking or not.
Grienspace, though we may agree on many fundamental issues, I’d say that you’re arguing from false premises here.
OK, this argument bugs me. I’m sorry, but having a policy that “nobody’s will be imposed” is an oxymoron. You just imposed your will on that girl by forcing her to accept your view that no one’s will be imposed. Get what I’m saying?
Neurotik, it is possible to see your point. But it’s a pretty far fetched one.
The “question before the house” in the OP was abortion. Based on inferences from teh OP, the issue at hand, one assumes, was what laws, if the high school students did have a voice, ought to be passed with regard to it.
The girl against whom ssj_man2k ranted desired to impose her will, i.e., her beliefs, as the basis for making such laws. He and those agreeing with him objected to this. In what way was he imposing his will on her?
Polycarp well, he yelled at her for one.
Let me try and explain my thoughts better. She was arguing a pro-life position based on her beliefs. He was arguing his pro-choice position based on his beliefs, correct? So I fail to see how she can be said to be attempting to impose her beliefs on everyone and the same thing cannot be said of ssj_man2K.
I concede the yelling – though I’ve seen “calm discussions” where it was necessary! 
Um, clarify something for me.
How can lack of agreement be called a “belief”?
At bottom, the topic as noted being abortion, she was advocating prohibiting a possible choice of action on the basis of her beliefs; he was advocating that that choice be kept open. Those who believe it to be wrong may refrain from doing it; others retain their freedom to choose.
I fail to see how he compelled her in any way.
Hmmm…I can see your point, Polycarp.
I wasn’t talking about the actual law, though. You are correct that a law banning abortion would cut off a choice and so would be forcing people to alter their actions based on some people’s beliefs, whereas leaving the choice open does not force anyone to choose anything.
What I am referring to is the actual beliefs. A position of pro-choice is essentially a position of compelling those who see abortion as wrong to accept the status quo in society, rather than working to change it.
I believe it’s expected of me in this situation to ask you to name some of said churches…
[sub](and this one doesn’t count)[/sub]
Very well put Polycarp, although I disagree my premise is false,perhaps inferior however, you certainly have been able to make a valid distinction between belief issues and the social standard.
The social standard however is not written in stone, and one of the benefits of a free and open society including open debate is the opportunity to change.
Anti-abortion but free choice that I am, and vehemently opposed to any connection between church and state, you may remember before there ever was an abortion debate, that abortion was illegal and frowned upon by the medical establishment as against the Hypocratic oath. I may be wrong, but the idea of sanctioned abortions was contrary to the social standard of many different societies throughout the world, and the open practice is a relatively recent phenomenon.
To say this girl pushed her bible laws quite frankly raises my eyebrow. What bible laws? The only law that I can think of is “Thou shalt not kill”. Isn’t that also part of the American social standard, the inalienable right to life. Isn’t that standard universal?
Where the rubber meets the road on this whole abortion issue is when does a foetus become a human being deserving of its own rights. As far as I can tell the bible does not directly address that issue, and although many Christians have taken up the cause for foetuses, I don’t believe they should be demonized because they want to include the gestation period as integral to human life.
This girl has a right to be heard and seek support for her position, and attempting to protect the unborn does not make her fascist. On the contrary, it was the NAZI fascists as I recall who wanted to carry on the elimination of the undesirable to horrible extremes.
Yeah, well, ummmmmmm…
Honestly, I don’t “count” that part of church history. “I can’t hear you, la la la la la la la”
That period goes to show what happens when people make agendas the point of their existence, instead of knowing Christ. The end only justifies the means if you look at the REAL end. The end there was that many people were sinned against, Christianity was identified with something wrong, and people for centuries have been able to wave that piece of dirty laundry around any time they wanted.
I don’t know who got the bright idea that sinning in the name of God was permissible, as if He couldn’t manage on his own without people “breaking a few eggs” to help Him out.
Really, I pretty much don’t count that peroid, as I don’t feel those people showed by their actions the “fruit” that identifies them as Christians. It’s a lot like a lot of Muslims feel right now toward Bin Laden and his ilk, as a matter of fact.
Cardinal, while I understand what you’re saying, it doesn’t change the fact the the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the New World was in large part due to very “UnChristlike” methods.
(And just because Muslims everywhere want to distance themselves from the fundamentalist Muslims and Osama and his boys doesn’t mean that what they are doing isn’t a part of the history of Islam. In fact, if they really want to “not count” fighting and killing as part of Islamic history, then they pretty much have to pretend that Mohammed was an entirely different person than the one that history records…)
Without resorting to its normal imparsible rhetoric, could the one that calls itself “ssj_man2k” please explain why it believes that we Christians are arrogant?
I think SPOOFE nailed it—what he’s complaining about is not that “Christians are arrogant”, but rather “arrogant Christians”.
OK, I’m not getting something here.
She did not impose her beliefs or her will, unless we are using a different definition of impose.
How does one little ol’ woman push her bible laws on the big US of A? Does she have some sort power I haven’t heard of? She argued a position, the same as the other members of her class.
Was she correct? IMHO, no way. She’s an airhead. But she’s still entitled to her position, just as the others were free to shout her down.
Somebody help me out here. What is she imposing?
Well said, grienspace. I’d note that the OP indicated that the girl was in fact arguing from her understanding of the Bible as the ground for her thinking.
I think I’m presupposing a moderately libertarian reading of the standards implied in the neopagan Rede, the Golden Rule, and the two Great Commandments of Christianity (and Rabbinic Judaism, be it noted). I.e., it is the duty of society to suppress behavior that harms others and to avoid acting as regards that which does not. Though the thesis that the fetus is in fact human is not an unreasonable one for someone to hold.
Having gotten that far, however, at what point does it become the business of government to supersede the girl’s decision about carrying the unborn child? At conception? When? And why? I cannot insist enough that I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I feel that a woman who has gotten pregnant through her own devices (i.e., not raped, gotten drunk and seduced, etc. – either willingly got pregnant or failed to take appropriate precautions not to) owes a moral duty to the unborn child to carry it to viability (presumably to term). But I feel equally strongly that this is her moral decision, affecting as it does her own body and life, and that no government has the right to take it from her.