Feed on Posts or Comments 23 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 08 Feb 2012 12:25 am

Why would anyone be against contraception? The insanity of religion surfaces again

Imagine that you are married, and you and your spouse would prefer not to have a baby right now. So one of you uses a contraceptive like a condom or a birth control pill.

Believe it or not, there are religions which think that giving you the choice to use a contraceptive is wrong, and they want to block access to contraceptives:

Contraception issue heats up as Santorum makes headway

Meanwhile, Romney intensified his attack on the Obama administration during a stop in Johnstown, Colo., after first mentioning the issue on Monday. “Remarkably, under this president’s administration there is an assault on religion — an assault on the conviction and religious beliefs on members of our society,” Romney said. “Recently (Obama) suggested that instead of a church being able to determine who qualifies for the ministerial exception from certain laws, that the government should be able to make that choice, not churches.”

The administration dealt “a real blow, particularly to our friends in the Catholic faith” with the contraception regulation, he said.

The word assault appears in the quote. The religious beliefs that try to block contraception should be assaulted, because they are insane.

35 Responses to “Why would anyone be against contraception? The insanity of religion surfaces again”

  1. on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:08 am 1.Anonymous said …

    Phuck catholicism

  2. on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:35 am 2.DPK said …

    This issue will be coming to the forefront soon. One of the provisions of health care reform is that employer’s health care plans must cover contraception. The Catholic machine, which employes a LOT of people in their various businesses, hospitals, schools, etc wants to impose their own idea of morality on those that work for them and refuse to pay for insurance that covers birth control.
    Just another example of religions trying to force their stupid beliefs down everyone else’s throats. Nothing new about that.
    And Santorium??? The staunch anti-abortionist… what a crock:
    http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

  3. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:00 am 3.Slapnuts said …

    This is ridiculous. The religious delusion of the Republican Party of this nation is appalling and just flat out ridiculous. I almost lost it last night while watching the election results on CNN. Santorum could not have humped the bible any harder than he did during his victory speeches. Now this? Unreal.

  4. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:23 am 4.Slapnuts said …

    And another thing…where does it mention in the fairy tale Bible anything about contraception or birth control? (this is a question of curiosity, not doubt).

  5. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:28 am 5.Answer said …

    Here it is straight from one of their weirdo sites, Slapnuts.

    http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/church-teaching-contraception-abortion/what-does-the-bible-say-about-contraception.html

  6. on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:28 am 6.Anonymous said …

    More examples, sadly, of the kind of doublethink that comes naturally to those infected with religion.

    Two thousand year-old biblical value systems of slavery, misogyny, and brutality are excused by believers under claim that they are from a different time or context. Yet when it comes to obstructing 21st century medicine and science, somehow those two thousand year-old biblical value systems suit them just fine.

    Santorum as a politician is probably quite aware of his double standards. The scary part is that I’ve met quite a few believers who are totally adept at holding and believing such conflicting values.

    Religion really is a devastatingly effective mind-control device.

  7. on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:14 am 7.Anonymous said …

    Reddit thread

  8. on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:24 am 8.Joe said …

    I read the link above and find the line of argument completely unconvincing. Even when I was a reborn Christian back then I did not believe that contraception is sinful. Thus was the protestant (i.e. non-catholic) tradition I grew up with.
    It is always interesting to see how much Christian denominations disagree on pretty fundamental questions. So much about the “absolute morality” that Christians claim the god’s word provides them with.
    And you will find even more disagreement on fundamental questions if you compare reborn evangelical Christians in Europe with those in the US, even if they have similar denominational backgrounds. Think of issues such as death penalty, health care, when to start wars, the role of government, taxation, the Christian attitude towards being rich, Christian patriotism, alcohol consumption, and the justification of capitalism. (And note that some of these moral questions are actually questions about life and death. What a disagreement among reborn Christians about such fundamental matters.)

  9. on 09 Feb 2012 at 5:55 pm 9.Curmudgeon said …

    Hmmm, actually, they think forcing them to COVER contraceptives is wrong. Also, left out why would the government force a religious institution to perform abortions against their religious conscious? Why is the DNC so anti-life anyway?

    Only exemptions for his buddies, none for the Catholics. Why does our president suddenly tell us giving more money to the government reflects giving to the hungry? Supposedly, Jesus now commands this.

    The establishment clause only applies when it in convenient. Yes, this sounds familiar.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
    and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did
    not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me — and there was
    no one left to speak for me.

  10. on 09 Feb 2012 at 5:57 pm 10.RevWillyNilly said …

    “Subverting the sovereignty of God: the deliberate act of rendering a sexual act infertile

    Genesis 38:8-10″

    Funny how Catholics seem to have no problem practicing the rhythm method – thereby rendering their sexual act infertile. Apparently it’s OK to rely on mathematics to not get pregnant, yet relying on medical science is out of the question.

  11. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:05 pm 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.Curmudgeon said …

    “Hmmm, actually, they think forcing them to COVER contraceptives is wrong.”

    ‘Religious institutions can qualify for an exemption if the services violate their beliefs, but not if they employ large numbers of people who do not share those beliefs. Thus, a Catholic hospital or university that employs largely non-Catholic workers must provide free contraception in its employees’ health insurance, even though birth control violates Catholic doctrine.’

    “Why is the DNC so anti-life anyway?”

    If they actually were, you could easily answer that question by looking in the mirror.

    “The establishment clause only applies when it in convenient. Yes, this sounds familiar.”

    Yes, it does. It’s extremely convenient for US churches because they are subsidized by the taxpayers.

  12. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:22 pm 12.DPK said …

    “Funny how Catholics seem to have no problem practicing the rhythm method – thereby rendering their sexual act infertile. Apparently it’s OK to rely on mathematics to not get pregnant, yet relying on medical science is out of the question.”

    The teaching against contraception is probably the most ignored tenant of the Catholic faith there is. Almost no one pays attention to it.. it’s that silly. The only ones who have a problem with contraception are gray haired, boozy, musty smelling cardinals and bishops who are more concerned with protecting their pedophile underlings (and their nice fat portfolios). I remember from my teenage days as a forced member of the catholic church, engaged couples were required to undergo per-marriage consulting with a priest… a celebrate who likely never was married and likely never had an intimate relationship with a woman. That’s like taking driving lessons from a blind person. Bat shit crazy. But no surprise there.

  13. on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:26 pm 13.DPK said …

    “Hmmm, actually, they think forcing them to COVER contraceptives is wrong.”
    Actually, THEY are not covering anything. Remember, health insurance is a aprt of employee compensation… it is the employee’s money that provides the health care coverage. No one is asking the churches to hand out birth control pills with the communion wafers. Should the churches have the right to tell their employees that they can’t spend their wages on contraception? Or anything else, like pornography, alcohol, or anything else they may have a problem with?

  14. on 09 Feb 2012 at 7:12 pm 14.Ben said …

    “Yes, it does. It’s extremely convenient for US churches because they are subsidized by the taxpayers.”

    Anyone know what Lou is talking about? Maybe he doesn’t know what subsidized means of that 50% of Americans don’t pay any taxes.

    Last I checked, religious freedom means you cannot force a religious group to go against their conscious. Your agreement with this act is irrelevant. The Constitution states nothing about how many they employ. They are a religious group and private. The other option is for them to shut the doors or only take Catholics.

    There are over 10,000 other clinics to get the contraceptives so they can get busy. Heed the warning in #8.

  15. on 09 Feb 2012 at 7:28 pm 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.Ben said …

    “Anyone know what Lou is talking about? Maybe he doesn’t know what subsidized means of that 50% of Americans don’t pay any taxes.”

    It’s irrelevant to my comment as to what percent of Americans pay taxes. The taxpayers, regardless of who they are, subsidized churches in the US.

    “Last I checked, religious freedom means you cannot force a religious group to go against their conscious.”

    First of all, that’s not happening here. But you better check again, because your definition of “religious freedom” is incorrect.

    “Your agreement with this act is irrelevant.”

    Where did I write that I agree with it?

  16. on 09 Feb 2012 at 7:38 pm 16.Ben said …

    Lou

    Subsidized means the government some how supports the existence of a church with government funds. This is not the case buddy.

    Yes, I know exactly what religious freedom is and what the constitution means by an establishment clause. Maybe a class would help you understand?

    Telling a religious institution what they will pay for with an unconstitutional government healthcare takeover is not constitutional. Healthcare is a benefit of the job, not a right.

    The rest of my post was directed at you specifically.

  17. on 09 Feb 2012 at 7:57 pm 17.Slapnuts said …

    Ahhh…the convenience of selectively pulling bible quotes out of the book to further ones’ agenda.

    Has anyone read and understood the entire context of the Genesis 38:8-10 story? Onan is demanded by his father Judah to have sex with his dead brother’s wife Tamar. Do Christians/Catholics practice this today? No. The “Lord” then kills Onan for not busting his load inside of his dead brother’s wife. Do Christians/Catholics practice this punishment today? No. The same father Judah later notices Tamar dressed as a prostitute and pays her for sex. Do Christians/Catholics practice this today? (Rhetorical question).

    Idiot religious d-bags base their entire ridiculous beliefs of contraception based on two lines (yes, I know there are more, but you’re missing the point) pulled from a story that contains practices that are just a little bit frowned upon by their same religious teachings.

  18. on 09 Feb 2012 at 7:59 pm 18.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.Ben said …

    “Subsidized means the government some how supports the existence of a church with government funds.”

    A subsidy can be indirect, which is the case for churches.

    “This is not the case buddy.”

    I’m not your buddy.

    And, you didn’t show where I wrote that I agreed with this act. To you want to retract?

  19. on 09 Feb 2012 at 8:29 pm 19.DPK said …

    quibble quibble… churches operate tax exempt… to me that’s a subsidy. We all pay more taxes in order to make up for the lack of tax revenue that churches would pay if they were taxed like any other business.
    So, answer my question… if you work for a church, is it ok for them to be able to tell you you cannot use your wages from them for contraception?

    Ben also said: “Last I checked, religious freedom means you cannot force a religious group to go against their conscious.”
    Really Ben? Try telling Uncle Sam you don’t want to pay your income tax this year because it goes against your religious beliefs. Maybe Curm will come visit you in jail.

  20. on 09 Feb 2012 at 8:37 pm 20.Slapnuts said …

    DPK…Right!

    Also Ben, your good book demands that you kill others in a number of instances (homosexuals, as an example). The laws of the United States prohibit the killing of others. Yet, if you do kill a homosexual purely because he is a homosexual (as your book tells you to do), you will surely be sent away for an extended period of time.

    Is this another example of the government infringing on your religious conscious, by prohibiting you from killing homosexuals?

  21. on 09 Feb 2012 at 8:54 pm 21.Slapnuts said …

    Food for thought (this builds on RevWillyNilly’s earlier comment):

    Contraception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

    Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a way of following God’s Plan for achieving and/or avoiding pregnancy. It consists of ways to achieve or to avoid pregnancy. (Description from nfpandmore.org).

    NFP is, in it’s broadest definition, doing the nasty during your female partners’ non-fertile period. This practice is taught and and endorsed by the Catholic religion. Why is natural family planning endorsed by Catholicism? Is one not wasting their seed?

  22. on 09 Feb 2012 at 8:55 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.DPK said …

    “quibble quibble… churches operate tax exempt… to me that’s a subsidy.”

    As well as Chief Justice William Rehnquist who wrote in the case Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983) :

    “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individual’s contributions.”

  23. on 09 Feb 2012 at 8:56 pm 23.DPK said …

    Right, and what if you happen to work for one of those nut-wing churches that doesn’t allow blood transfusions… do they have the right to force the health insurance provider to not pay for your transfusion when it’s needed to save your life? No matter how you twist it, it comes down to a religion forcing their goofy beliefs on others.

  24. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:02 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.DPK said …

    “Really Ben? Try telling Uncle Sam you don’t want to pay your income tax this year because it goes against your religious beliefs.”

    “Maybe a class would help” the IRS understand? We could get a note from the the teacher of that class and attach it to our 1040 about “…what the constitution [sic] means by an establishment clause.”

    “Maybe Curm will come visit you in jail.”

    And Hor, too, if he’s not in his Broadway In The Basement fantasy…

  25. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:14 pm 25.Martin said …

    In the U.S no religion receives government funding; every religion in America is funded exclusively with voluntary contributions. No religion is protected by government from the competition of other religions. No religion receives special privileges from government. No licensing requirements exist to thwart the creation of new religions or churches. Similarly, no preacher, priest, rabbi, or other religious worker is licensed by government. Entry into the religion market is utterly free. Government has no regulatory agencies to screen or validate religious doctrines before such doctrines are allowed to be marketed. There is no cabinet-level office devoted to religion. And no one is forced to attend religious services or to study religious doctrines.

    If such freedom works so well for religion, why doesn’t Obama leave other industries alone?

    sub·si·dy/?s?bsid?/
    Noun:
    A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service…
    A sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.

  26. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:18 pm 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.Martin said …

    In his attempt to create a straw-man argument:

    “In the U.S no religion receives government funding…”

  27. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:23 pm 27.Ben said …

    “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system.”

    That means approximately half of Obama’s cabinet was on a subsidy. They only paid their taxes when they desired to be in his cabinet. In fact, 1/2 of America is on a subsidy.

    I never realized just how much liberals wanted the gummit to control their freedoms. Just wait until the gummit wants to control their porno, then we will see their attitude change.

    Lou, of course you are my buddy. You are my little project. You are so precious.

    Ben, very well put. Regardless of what one Justice declares, the definition of subsidy is cash received by folks like Solyndra, Labor Unions, GE, stimulus waste, etc.

  28. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:33 pm 28.Slapnuts said …

    What happened to all of the talk about wasting one’s seed? :-D

  29. on 09 Feb 2012 at 9:36 pm 29.Lou (DFW) said …

    26.Ben said …

    “That means approximately half of Obama’s cabinet was on a subsidy. They only paid their taxes when they desired to be in his cabinet.”

    So what? Other than to your feeble imagination, how is this relevant to anything being discussed?

    “In fact, 1/2 of America is on a subsidy.”

    No doubt that’s all Obama’s fault, right?

    “Lou, of course you are my buddy. You are my little project. You are so precious.”

    You “sound” remarkably like a Catholic priest pedophile.

  30. on 10 Feb 2012 at 3:42 am 30.Anonymous said …

    In #26, Ben said in reply to Martin “Ben, very well put”

    Oh dear, Ben. Your sock-puppet is showing.

  31. on 10 Feb 2012 at 3:56 am 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Anonymous said …

    “In #26, Ben said in reply to Martin “Ben, very well put”

    “Oh dear, Ben. Your sock-puppet is showing.”

    Yes, several months ago I caught him making a similar mistake as Hor, but he ignored it, as most likely he will now. Such is the sad case for frauds like him.

  32. on 10 Feb 2012 at 4:22 am 32.DPK said …

    hahaha… busted again. It IS comforting to know that there are at least 3 or 4 less idiotic people in the world.
    I hope the readers here take notice that Ben and his multiple personas NEVER respond to direct questions. What does that tell you?
    About time for Ben to disappear and Horratio to make an appearance, eh?

  33. on 10 Feb 2012 at 10:46 am 33.Anonymous said …

    At least three or four less, indeed.

    It’s of note that the latest crop of posters all have something in common. They pop up just when needed to try to divert the conversation away from the topic of providing proof of the imaginary god, and they all, everyone of them, ignore direct questions.

    Their style is the same, their content is the same, they defend each the same. Somewhat obvious really what’s going on with Cur, Hor, Ben, Michael, Martin, etc, isn’t it?

  34. on 12 Feb 2012 at 8:59 pm 34.40 year Atheist said …

    As with historical Atheists, personhood is not the real issue: it is a red herring, a deflection from actual issues. When it comes to denying the right to live, Atheists have always cheerfully derived algorithms for determining who has that right and who does not. Entire cultures have been annihilated under such algorithms; estimates now of 250,000,000 or more died under such Atheist algorithms in the past 100 years alone. Yet today’s Atheists do not shy from the task, they embrace it publicly and enthusiastically. New Man humanism lives on.

    So it becomes clear that the Atheist/Secularist/Materialist will be the one to determine the qualifications of the individual to secure and maintain life, at least if their rules come to dominate. And they have come to dominate in the arena of abortion and other victimology indulgences.

    The next question becomes that of criterion. Can personhood be empirically measured, in terms of length, width, height, weight, temperature, energy redistribution, quantum field disturbance? Personhood is a metaphysical construct, not an empirical entity. It is therefore deniable under Materialist myopia. So there can be any number of definitions, including complete denial that personhood exists at all, along with self, consciousness, sentience and human exceptionalism. Which definition to choose, in actuality then, becomes one of convenience. What do we want to accomplish, and what definition can we choose that fits that objective? Atheist Consequentialism at work.

    This presents the entire question of personhood as being ancillary to political goals well beyond the issue of abortion. Abortion, like racism, is a tool to be used toward larger objectives, such as victimology, in this case portraying the woman as the victim of the fetus, certainly not the personal ownership of sexual mismanagement, or dereliction of personal responsibility. And victimology is one of the primary tools of the Atheist Left, designed to capture entire demographics in a mire of emotional dependency and personal weakness.

    Abortion is just one more step in the direction of humanist management of the herds of mankind. Personhood could well be redefined tomorrow, if the Consequentialist objectives require it to be so; it has been agilely redefined as Consequentialism required in the past. Denial of personhood at point A in human development is congruent with denial at point B, whenever it is convenient to make the change.

    It is always beneficial to remember one feature of Atheist/Secularist/Materialism: there is no Truth, so therefore there are also no lies.

  35. on 18 Feb 2012 at 10:34 am 35.azreal said …

    I for one, don’t care what individuals believe, theist or not. It’s a free country, or is it? My problem is that people with thier preposterous (to mthe rest e) beliefs in a big magic guy wnt to affect how other people who don’t share thier beliefs live thier lives.

    If they kept it to themselves, I’m happy to leave them to it, But they think they can impose thier belief structure on the rest of us; jihhad anyone?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply