All The Local Clergy Leaders Speak Out On Abortion

[Lonan3]

The point being made, however, is that the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself, its influence is in sharp decline and likely to remain so.

People who now respond to such issues from a religious perspective tend to be dismissed by a majority of people for ignoring the realities of situations in favour of 'belief.'

Whilst I find abortion repellant when its used simply as a form of birth control, I don't believe that there can be a complete ban because there are many occasions when it is a 'necessary evil.'

[Declan]

I think the Church has a perfect right to air its views on issues like this. Indeed one wonders what is its point if it doesn't.

 

However, I retain the right to point and laugh at them.

[Chinahand]

Is DjDan really saying that the abortion issue only involves a couple of Religious Organizatons/Churches?

[DjDan]

The point being made, however, is that the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself, its influence is in sharp decline and likely to remain so.

 

how can you on one hand be talking about 'all religious organizations' and yet refer to an issue that involved only a couple?

 

It's like saying all manx people are two-faced, and refer to an issue that represented only a minority of them.

 

People who now respond to such issues from a religious perspective tend to be dismissed by a majority of people for ignoring the realities of situations in favour of 'belief.'

 

yes, a majority of people dismiss the views of the religious... therefore what?

[gilf_uk]

what a tragic world we'd all be living in.

 

I think it is a tragic world when we believe that the church or religion has any place to dictate how anyone should live their lives.

 

Remember, it's not just people who follow the RC faith who are being told that abortion, as you put it, is murder, it's all women.

 

What gives them the right?

[Declan]

If they believe something is murder, they should speak out. They have every right - this is a free country.

 

It is up to those of us who hold different views to argue our case. And attacking the Church isn't the best way to win them round.

 

(incidentally, I'm sure the Pope will be chuffed that DJ Dan seems to have been shoved into the role of spokeperson for the Roman Catholicism!)

[DjDan]

Is DjDan really saying that the abortion issue only involves a couple of Religious Organizatons/Churches?

 

no, i have not said that... neither do I infer it. I am merely pointing out that you cannot deny religion it's say the matter. You may not agree with the views expressed, but that doesn't mean that they therefore should not exist.

 

(incidentally, I'm sure the Pope will be chuffed that DJ Dan seems to have been shoved into the role of spokeperson for the Roman Catholicism!)

 

[Chinahand]

Is DjDan really saying that the abortion issue only involves a couple of Religious Organizatons/Churches?

 

no, i have not said that... neither do I infer it. I am merely pointing out that you cannot deny religion it's say the matter. You may not agree with the views expressed, but that doesn't mean that they therefore should not exist.

 

Then could you please explain what you mean or infer here:

how can you on one hand be talking about 'all religious organizations' and yet refer to an issue that involved only a couple?

 

It's like saying all manx people are two-faced, and refer to an issue that represented only a minority of them.

 

Sorry to be thick, but I don't get your point. I totally agree with you that all religions have the right to have a view on this issue - which is why I'm confused about your statement that it only involves a couple - that seems a contradiction, or am I misreading?

[Declan]

Because he is replying to this -

 

The point being made, however, is that the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself, its influence is in sharp decline and likely to remain so.

People who now respond to such issues from a religious perspective tend to be dismissed by a majority of people for ignoring the realities of situations in favour of 'belief.'

Whilst I find abortion repellant when its used simply as a form of birth control, I don't believe that there can be a complete ban because there are many occasions when it is a 'necessary evil.'

 

So Dan is saying that not all Churches are culpable for the sins of churches in the past.

[DjDan]

The point being made, however, is that the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself, its influence is in sharp decline and likely to remain so.

 

how can you on one hand be talking about 'all religious organizations' and yet refer to an issue that involved only a couple?

 

It's like saying all manx people are two-faced, and refer to an issue that represented only a minority of them.

 

 

As above, Lonan said "..the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself.."

 

He makes the point that in using the term 'the church' he is referring to all religious organizations (that must include buddhists, hindu's, and within christianity: pentecostals, methodists, baptists, jehovahs witnesses, latter-day saints etc.).

 

Yet he immediately states that [they] (all religious organizations) lost a moral imperative by proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself. Surely in this he is referring to a minority of religious groups (with this 'all religions' category). Is he to say that every religious organization is hypocritical and preaches double standards? That is what he suggests in such a statement. And it is this that I disagree with: "how can you on one hand be talking about 'all religious organizations' and yet refer to an issue (proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself) that involved only a couple?"

[DjDan]

Because he is replying to this -

 

The point being made, however, is that the church (employed in this instance as a 'catch-all' term for all religious organizations) lost any moral imperative a very long time ago. After many centuries of proclaiming moral standards that it applied to everyone but itself, its influence is in sharp decline and likely to remain so.

People who now respond to such issues from a religious perspective tend to be dismissed by a majority of people for ignoring the realities of situations in favour of 'belief.'

Whilst I find abortion repellant when its used simply as a form of birth control, I don't believe that there can be a complete ban because there are many occasions when it is a 'necessary evil.'

 

So Dan is saying that not all Churches are culpable for the sins of churches in the past.

 

bah! I should have just waited for you to post this one before I spent more than 5 mins waffling out my explanation..

 

[Chinahand]

Speaking for myself I felt that the most important part of Lonan3's post was this:

People who now respond to such issues from a religious perspective tend to be dismissed by a majority of people for ignoring the realities of situations in favour of 'belief.'

I do feel this is a problem that all churches face in the modern world, and not a couple. Most people are pragmatic and do not take a strongly ideological or theological point of view. When the "Churches" take an absolute position, based on a theology that most people do not follow, it creates a big problem for the Churches and undermines their standing.

 

When Lonan3 says -

Whilst I find abortion repellant when its used simply as a form of birth control, I don't believe that there can be a complete ban because there are many occasions when it is a 'necessary evil.'

- he is saying something that most secular, pragmatic people agree with. And when "the Churches" oppose that with a dogmatic position based on theology it compounds their failure to engage with the real world - as Lonan3 says they are ignoring the realities of the situation in favour of 'belief'. I do not think that is helpful for the "Churches" or for having an open debate about a very real issue.

 

I find the threat to deny communion to polititians who have taken a position different from the "Churches' " view an example of the bully pulpit that is a throwback to the dark ages - "Churches" have to engage with society, not threaten its own members when they, out of conscience for their constituents, take a position different from Church Dogma.

 

In my mind - this is one huge own goal, and one more likely to turn people away from religion.

[*daniel*]

Leaving religion aside, surely abortion should be legalized on the grounds of safety? ie somebody, somewhere, is always going to want an abortion. So they can either have it done safely or will end up going to some "dark ally abortionist".

 

Not that I agree at all with the trend of little slags going out clubbing every weekend, getting drunk, "hooking up" with different guys every night and having unprotected sex.

[DjDan]

Chinahand, I understand what you are saying here, and I would largely agree it's logic.. but that said, I think you are undermining "the churches" standpoint here a little.

 

It goes without saying, that to the religious, the most important matter in life is God. Depending on their strength of conviction, to them God is real. It is not so much a 'risk' or 'gamble', but a very sure faith. Now I have discussed the issue of "faith" in the past, and so will not go into that here. But in this post, I will consider it as a 'sure knowledge'.

 

You said:

when "the Churches" oppose that with a dogmatic position based on theology it compounds their failure to engage with the real world

 

I think you expect the "churches" to change their every theology just to 'fit in'. A true church, based on true principles of God will never do that. As far as churches are concerned, if God has told them to act in a certain way... and the men of the world tell them to act in something contrary, they will choose to follow God. That may be something that you find difficult to appreciate (being that you do not believe in God yourself) but you should accept that as the way. I would rather upset a few on earth than upset God by not following his law.

 

Churches are not there to 'fit in' with the world. Churches are not their to be 'popular' and be praised for their changing theology to adapt to the world. Churches are there to teach of God and prepare us to return into his presence. If they must teach a doctrine of God that is hated by the world... well, so be it.

 

I find the threat to deny communion to polititians who have taken a position different from the "Churches' " view an example of the bully pulpit that is a throwback to the dark ages

 

i suppose here you are talking about the Roman Catholics?? While I cannot answer for them, I will say a little on the similar practice of cautioning church followers even to excommunication. May I ask why it is bullying? If people profess to be a follower of Christ (within are particular faith) and then live their lives contrary to the teachings that Christ gives (within that particular faith) do you expect the individuals to go on without caution or threat? In this I refer to the excommunication issue. It is quite a normal practice. In schools... if children are unruly they can be suspended or expelled. In a church, if followers do not follow core doctrines, and set a bad example to others (in this case they happen to be politicians) they will face the natural consequences ---> suspension, or expulsion (excommunication). It's not really that radical!! And it's hardly considered "bullying".

 

Just while you're curious on the matter:

Whilst I find abortion repellant when its used simply as a form of birth control, I don't believe that there can be a complete ban because there are many occasions when it is a 'necessary evil.'

 

You quoted Lonan's words above and suggested that this is the view of "most secular, pragmatic people". Well, this is a view accepted by myself and my church also.

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.

[Hermes]

Hmmm... interesting.

 

There seem to be so many 'churches' with so many viewpoints.

 

Perhaps becuase this is the case, then there can be no 'real' literal interpretation of scriptures. To do so would lead to conflict between believers and thus utterly negate the message of Peace and Love of thy neighbour etc, which is a key commandment of Jesus to his followers that seems to transcend the viewpoints of the various gospels and churches.

 

In other words... Love and support your neighbour, whatever their viewpoint, and stop trying to change how they think or interfering in how they can act! To do so is a confirmation of conflict, and thus ultimately: evil. Have whatever church or belief you want - it is just a puzzle for you to solve and overcome so you can become a better person. Once you have worked that out, you will have no need for it and we can all start getting along.