Religious Support is There for Planned Parenthood.

When I was growing up in a conservative Protestant church, abortion was never discussed from the pulpit.  It was discussed in homes a lot.

There was a religious angle to it.  Catholics, it was said, were against abortions for self serving reasons, to increase the number of their faith.  Protestants were smug in their refusal to engage in such self serving politics.

Some things have changed since then, but there is still support in the religious community for the work of Planned Parenthood.  It is in the liberal branches of both Protestants and Catholics.  There is some frustration that Planned Parenthood does not make better use of this support.

My guess is Planned Parenthood is not comfortable getting into an industry, religion,  where moral values are quite arbitrary.  Yet, there are those making a moral case for abortion rights every bit as strong as the opposition.

The attached article points out Planned Parenthood’s work is very much in line with Jesus’ admonition for compassion, especially for poor children and poor families.  The ability of space births allows poor people to live lives that are better and more like those of wealthier people.  To not allow spacing is to prevent women from obtaining better lives.

In past years, a United Church of Christ headed a group making the religious case for abortion.  The religious right has been successful in stomping down that group.

Yet, today there are stirrings of a religious case for abortion rights.

http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/11/15/can-there-be-a-religious-response-to-planned-parenthoods-critics/

Join the spirited discussion on FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Religious Support is There for Planned Parenthood.

  1. Henry says:

    Jon: “My guess is Planned Parenthood is not comfortable getting into an industry, religion, where moral values are quite arbitrary.”

    Some terms all in the same sentence: Planned Parenthood, industry, and arbitrary moral values.

  2. .e says:

    Jon, bare with me here as this is purely a logical argument since you are an atheist. Just looking for consistency.

    I doesn’t follow that Jesus, who is God incarnate, would would ordain an organization that not only frustrates the creation of His children but also destroys them just so the “born” can “get some” whenever they are so inclined.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 3:22 “purely logical argument…”

      Seems to me you have to make the assumption first that “creation of His children” never takes the life of other children. When considering the poor, especially in circumstances where there is not enough food, housing or medical care each additional child takes some away from another child. If it were certain this never, ever happens, the logical case would be stronger.

    • Henry says:

      .e: “Jon, bare with me here”

      Careful asking an atheist to “bare” with you. They have arbitrary moral values.

  3. .e says:

    I just saw that misspelling. I wish I could say I wrote it on purpose!

    • entech says:

      Positively Freudian, to bare all would exclude even a slip.
      (I do hope that is the name of an item of underwear there as well as here)

  4. .e says:

    Yes, the problem of suffering. It is my faith’s belief that even this brings ultimate good. Also, it still is better to be than not. I am glad to be here even though now, being middle age probably only have that decline in my future.

    We all suffer to a greater or lesser degree. Physically, mentally or spiritually take your pick. Who is to judge a life worth living?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 3:56 “Yes, the problem of suffering. It is my faith’s belief that even this brings ultimate good.”

      A very nice post, indeed. A philosophical argument I’ve seen asks whether there is a moral obligation to reduce suffering when it does not increase suffering to anyone else. Then, there is the case where the benefit to some is greater than the harm done to others so the net is society is happier or suffers less. Is there is a moral obligation that whenever we can accomplish this we should do so?

      Now, when we get into the abortion issue, it is just not simple to me. First, statistically have an abortion is safer to the mother than giving birth. If the mother wants to take the health risk of giving birth, she should have the right to do so. But, if she doesn’t want to take that risk, especially if there are pregnancy complications that add risk to her, it seems to me she should have that right to an abortion.

      While we are a country mostly of abundance, there is not abundance in every woman’s circumstances. Then, there are regions of the world where there is literal starvation. Another baby might be the death sentence to another human. Or, ten babies might mean one death somewhere else.

      The upshot is not believing in abortion works on an individual basis. To put it in place for everyone seems to me to have a questionable moral foundation.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        From Dec 6 –Just a little housekeeping– Jon’s 4;43; “First, statistically have an abortion is safer to the mother than giving birth. If the mother wants to take the health risk of giving birth, she should have the right to do so. “——Regarding rate of death of mother in childbirth. 90 years ago, it was 1 in 100 live births. Currently, before 1977 the death rate was 10 per 100,00. After stats reveal the rate jumped to 13 per 100.000. Primarily attributed to increased obesity, and increased C-sections. The death rate currently during abortions in the 1st trimester is 7 per 100,000. In that scenario, Jon would be right, however that takes into consideration a 1st trimester abortion vs, full term preg. After the first trimester, the rate of death of mother increases 38 % for every week later. The death rate of the mother in the 2nd trimester is 33 per 100,000. This reveals that the death rates increase dramatically as the length of pregenancy increases. Another consideration is that many complications of pregenancy reveal after the first trimester. It is my understanding that abortions are not legal in the last trimester. The death rate of the unborn is 100% no matter when the abortion is performed. Source–NCBI Pub Med- National Library- National Institute of Health.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Oops; For the sake of clarity, my ” The death rate of the unborn is 100% no matter when the abortion is performed”. was not in the NCBI Pub Med report, and should not be attributed to them.

  5. Michael Ross says:

    “Planned Parenthood’s work is very much in line with Jesus’ admonition for compassion, especially for poor children and poor families.”

    This “Christian” nation has seen 60 million children slaughtered in our “medical” clinics – children sacrificed to the gods of humanism and self determination. America’s death toll is five times that of Nazi Germany.

    We make excuses for baby killers by saying that Planned Parenthood does many “good things” – as if that can wash away the blood spilled right here in Fargo every week. We praise Planned Parenthood for screening for AIDS and cancer with one hand while they rip unborn children limb from limb with the other hand.

    • entech says:

      How many cells constitute a child? How many cells before the child has limbs?
      I have said before abortion should be safe but very rare?
      Exaggeration and emotive language does not help your case.

      • Michael Ross says:

        Q:”How many cells constitute a child?” A: Two – 1 egg & 1 sperm

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          I think I see a “oops ” here Michael. your statement falls into Jon’s concept that “every sperm is sacred”, and gives credibility to it. Consider the roughly 8 hours it takes from the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm and the 1st division of the egg cell cell into two??? Just saying. Not my area of expert knowlege.

        • entech says:

          And how many before you can start ripping them limb from limb.
          Not helping your case.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          One egg on one end of the couch with the single sperm on the other does not “constitute” a child. Even if they look wistfully at each other, and the egg says” come on over here big boy”. They still are seperate cells until they unite, and (one could say); (dare I?) “become one flesh”?? ( A saying). I don’t know, just saying. I don’t have a sperm in this race.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          “become one flesh”; An entirely new DNA sequence different from the sperm and the egg alone? Could be. Oh well, it’s just a saying, and a speculation.

  6. Michael Ross says:

    “In past years, a United Church of Christ headed a group making the religious case for abortion. ”

    This “Christian denomination” using the name of Christ in promoting abortion is the highest form of blasphemy. You are confusing Christ with Molech, the detestable god of the Cannanites that required child sacrifice.

    As evil as Molech worship was, that evil was out in the open. In America, we hide our child sacrifice behind euphemisms like “reproductive choice” and describe the murder of unborn children as a “legal medical procedure” as if we were cutting out a tumor or donating a kidney. We hide behind lies and hypocrisy while our streets run red with the blood of our children. We drive by the abortion mill with no thought of the abominations that go on inside.

  7. .e says:

    ” First, statistically have an abortion is safer to the mother than giving birth”

    Regarding he research in the Raymond and Grimes’ article, there is a critique written by Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University. Coleman says:

    You need to know that the data reported by abortion clinics to state health departments and ultimately to the CDC significantly under-represents abortion morbidity and mortality for several reasons: 1) abortion reporting is not required by federal law and many states do not report abortion-related deaths to the CDC; 2) deaths due to medical and surgical treatments are reported under the complication of the procedure (e.g., infection) rather than the treatment (e.g., induced abortion); 3) most women leave abortion clinics within hours of the procedure and go to hospital emergency rooms if there are complications that may result in death; 4) suicide deaths are rarely, if ever, linked back to abortion in state reporting of death rates; 5) an abortion experience can lead to physical and/or psychological disturbances that increase the likelihood of dying years after the abortion, and these indirect abortion-related deaths are not captured at all.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      e. 11:50 re:Ph.D. Coleman
      So from what she wrote, she is concluding she don’t know whether abortion is safer than giving birth, or, not safer.

      What I’d like to pursue is suffering. From your faith’s belief that good comes from suffering, are we to conclude the more suffering is better than less?

  8. .e says:

    Jon, the only way we can add more suffering individually is to cause suffering. That would be wrong. So I don’t think I can answer that question. What I can show you are examples of people who suffered greatly and have been recognized as saints. They suffered, but were filled with joy. Blessed John Paul II had a difficult early life. Lost his mother very young and father at 20. Then there was the war and it’s affect in Poland. At the end of his life, Parkinson’s took away his mobility and speech and it also is painful for many years. This man definitely added to the greater good of our world by his love. I would expect we all know those people whose negative reaction to suffering brings about no good to themselves or those near them.

  9. .e says:

    In my faith, suffering need not be in vain. Maybe that summarizes better.

  10. How can there be “religious support” for killing an unborn human?
    “Thou shalt not kill” is still part of our justice system and it is from OT scripture and carried over into the NT covenant. Michael Ross is correct: two cells (1 sperm and 1 egg) make a human baby right from the moment of conception. It is not a nameless blob or “product of conception” like pro abortion supporters have deceived themselves into “believing”.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Kay; I’m sure that’s what Michael intended to say, but that’s not how it reads. That is my only point.

    • Henry says:

      Kay: “It is not a nameless blob or “product of conception” like pro abortion supporters have deceived themselves into “believing”.”

      The pro-abortion crowd has a huge problem. Their premise on whether to abort or not does not hinge on whether the fetus is a human life or not. They aren’t interested in the science, and operate on the assumption the fetus/embryo/zygote is not a human life.

      Usually, when human life is involved, society generally errs on the side of life, except for abortion. For example:
      1. If one looks at a serial murderer on death row, much deference is given towards preserving the murderer’s life through hundreds of legal appeals that are given full consideration. Society errs on the side of his life.
      2. If a burglar is breaking into your home, society has certain expectations of how you preserve the intruder’s life under certain circumstances. Society errs on the side of the intruder in that his life has value, too.
      3. Society upholds the preservation of people’s lives traveling on the highway over the right of the alcoholic from driving while intoxicated. Society correctly errs on the very low limit of 0.08 BAC in favor of life.

      Not so with little ones that cannot speak. Instead the birth canal is used as the test that determines life or death. Outside – life, inside – anything goes.

      • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

        Are you aware that one can not have an abortion during anytime of pregnancy? In fact, abortions are only allowed at the beginning. So your argument here really is not true.

        • Henry says:

          When you know what you are talking about, please come back to the table. For the moment you should be seen, not heard.
          http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/09/end-road

          Besides that, your point/question does not follow.

          My disappointment in you rises.

          • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

            My point actually does follow. You stated that as long as it was inside the woman, anything goes. That simply is not true.

            More so, abortion, again, is only allowed at the beginning (the first 22 weeks, and many states don’t even allow for that long).

          • Henry says:

            You are incorrect. If a third trimester abortion is desired, it can legally happen. Not in all jurisdictions, but one can get one.

          • Stanta says:

            Dustin, as long as it can be done somewhere in the US, people will travel there to have it done.

  11. Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

    I find the anti-abortion comments comical in the sense that they want to demonize everyone who isn’t their particular brand of Christian. The language is simply ridiculous, and shows a complete distance from reality.

    I support a woman’s right to have abortion. I don’t like abortion, I don’t approve of abortion. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to force others into my view point, nor am I going to demonize them for thinking different. There are various instances in which abortion is necessary. There are instances in which abortion is more ideal then giving birth. It generally isn’t something that is done willy nilly, or because someone just wants to have a good time with no consequences.

    And for the idea that a fetus, at the time of conception, is a human being. That is nothing more than emotional ridden language in order to demonize others. If a fetus is a human, from the very beginning, then women in general are baby killers. The fact is, a woman’s body will frequently abort fertilized eggs for one reason or another. And by the language that anti-abortion members here are using, women in general are baby killers and murderers. Really, that is just foolish.

    • Henry says:

      Your tolerance sucks. Please learn a little tolerance for the pro-life people.

      • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

        Henry- How am I not being tolerant? Yes, I think many of the comments made by pro-lifers are foolish. But that isn’t being intolerant. I’m not calling you a murder, or demonizing you, as pro-lifers have done here. I am also not trying to force my viewpoint on you. I think you need to learn what tolerance is.

        • Stanta says:

          Dustin, off topic questions.

          So far you have told us you are a nonpracticing Jew, a former minister, a theology student hoping to be ordained in a new denomination. Yet you reject most of the Bible, don’t believe in the miracles of the Bible. Think that the Acts of The Apostles is false and you seem to think that Gentiles must become Jews to be Christians as having to be circumcised and following the dietetic laws of the Jews. Sounds like a heck of a beginning for someone becoming a pastor.

          Just what denomination are you expecting to preach in? Unless the Lutheran Church has changed beyond all recognition in the last 30 years you are going to have a heck of a time finding work. Thank goodness you won’t become a Catholic priest with beliefs like that.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Stanta; I think he is going to Concordia for the wallpaper, and will eventually start his own ecclectic montage of etherial material. The Church of What’s Happening Now. Whatever he does, I hope he takes “conflict resolution, and Pastoral Care”.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 12:32 “..and will eventually start his own ecclectic montage of etherial material>”

            This wholesales criticism of Dustin must be amusing to him. It reminds me of a commedy bit Frank Sanatra did on TV about another singer/crooner.
            “If there is one thing I can’t stand, it’s a good looking younger singer with a great voice. Especially if he’s Italian.”

            Dustin obviously has studied theology relatively recently from faculty younger than most of us here. What Justin knows is contemporary theological.

          • Henry says:

            Wanna: “and will eventually start his own ecclectic montage of etherial material.”

            That process has partially begun, including a method to make an offering.
            http://www.belzian.com/donate/
            Freethinkers, jump in there and donate.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            And it shows. He is still searching. Hopefully growing. If he finds it amusing, I’m concerned that his growth will be reduced. This is nothing compared to what he will experience in the future. “relativity recently” and “contemporary” are key words, and I’m sure he picked some of it up before he even got to Concordia. Thanks.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I would also suggest that Dustin study 1 Timothy 3:6-7, and 1 Timothy 6:4, and think about it.

          • entech says:

            Jon, I think it is most amusing that although the three of them don’t like you or me or demo etc. And mostly by what they say they don’t particularly agree with each other, they do share one thing and that is a particularly virulent, would hatred be too strong?, animosity towards one who does not agree with any of them and does appear to you and me to have more sense than all of them put together. When will they all realise it is just a story and you can read it anyway that takes your fancy, even different ways over different times in your life.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 2:12 There is an irony in hearing some Christians say, “The Word never changes.” When we read of what the prevailing view of Christians was only 100 years ago, what Jesus meant, what was sin, etc., it was quite different. A 100 years from now, one has to believe the faith will be quite different.

            One the other hand, when I read the writings of atheists 100 years ago, they sound just like Richard Dawkins.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I look at it not as “virulent, or Hate”, but more as providing corrective considerations. I think I have earlier submitted the story of the crusty old miner walking with his mule loaded with shovel, pick sack of beans, etc. along the edge of a steep and deep cliff. The mule decided to back up towards the edge of the cliff, and the miner was pulling on the reins to stop him from going over. The miner, having a glass eye, went around to the rear of the mule, pulled out his glass eye and stuck it into the anus of the mule, and shouted; “Now can you see where you are going?” Sometimes we all have had to do something similar with our children as they grew up. Not hate, or anything close to it, but corrective. Nor do I hate Jon, Entech, or Demo. I rather enjoy you cliff backer-uppers. I wouldn’t be surprised that that mule even tried to kick that old miner, at least until that glass eye was installed. Glass eyes anyone?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; Re your 3:13; Come on now Jon. Just admit it. When you were a kid you wanted to drink a little, play cards, and persue women just like the other churches that allowed it all along. We could drink a little, play cards, and I did persue my wife until we married. Or did she persue me? Did my church change? No. Or did you leave yours because you changed? You changed until there is no church for you. I’m thinking you have a resentment of your spiritual upbringing, and wish everyone felt the same way. They don’t. Others change in the other direction. Our own children went through the years of youthfull complacently, never lost their faith though, and have become very active in their own local congregations along with their own children. We allowed them to grow, never forced them, and they matured. (grew up)stronger than before. On the other hand, if you look for changes, desire changes, you will find them, or create them. This is not new. It has been going on for thousands of years. You are not a pioneer.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 3:42 “You are not a pioneer.”

            That is definitely true. Since almost forever, nonbelievers have noted the ever changing moral principles of the faithful. Part of the faithful mythology is that it never changes. Only from the outside, it seems, can the changes be seen clearly.

          • entech says:

            providing corrective considerations.
            Call it what you like, you all seem to know the truth, a different truth for each of you, but Dustin is too different for any of you.

            I get as bored saying it as you, probably, do hearing it, “You can’t all be right, there is a high probability that you could all be wrong” IMHO.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I know where I can get glass eyes for the both of you. Let me know what color you prefer. PS. I don’t install.

          • entech says:

            Quite often with responses from Jon and others that are frivious, and loaded with intentional distractions. It is very difficult to remain on topic, and I am convinced that part of this is Jon and others intent. And then, there are quite often unrelated tangents brought up in other directions. I don’t initiate it, I merely respond.
            :lol:

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Hmmmm well said.

          • entech says:

            Well, at least you agree with yourself.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You can call me anything you wish, but you can’t call me conflicted.

          • Stanta says:

            Thanks Henry, I can’t wait for the Gospel According to Dustin. My goodness Jon, he is the epitome of your theory that churches are in it for the money.

          • entech says:

            True your being doubtful certainly does not mean you are full of doubt.

          • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

            So, it seems it may be time for me to introduce myself. Like Jon suggested, I do find this all to be quite amusing. The fact that some want to try to describe me by a short about me page that was misunderstood is kind of cute. The focus on it also warms my heart.

            First, yes, I am a non-practicing Jew. When I was younger, in my teens, I had converted to Judaism (I actually later found out that I was born a Jew as well). The thing is, once you’re a Jew, you’re always a Jew. Being a Jew is much more than following a religion, it is a culture, an ethnicity. It is part of who I am, and my background. So yes, I am a Jew (I just don’t practice Judaism).

            I was a former minister, and was ordained in a fundamentalist church. During most of my studies while becoming ordained though, I was not a Christian. However, I was groomed, from a very early age, to be a minister in this church, and was forced into becoming a minister. It really wasn’t my choice, and it was largely because of this that I lost my faith in Christianity (I found the religion intolerant, and hateful, and the more I was pushed, the more resentment I had). So when I was finally ordained, unbeknownst to my minister, I was an atheist.

            Unlike what Henry has said elsewhere, I did not practice 5 or so religions in about a decade. I lost faith in Christianity when I was 10. At the point, I converted to Islam, as I had met a nice Muslim gentleman who guided me in the religion, and it fit. I practiced it for four years, but started getting more interested in Judaism. I sought to convert, but was denied (as is usual) and the continued studying the religion. I eventually converted, and stayed within Judaism for four years as well, at which point I became an atheist (atheism is not a religion). It was around this time as well that I was ordained, and I began to do some ministering. After all, I was just forced to spend 8 years (as they didn’t want to ordain me until I was 18) going through the process. But once I started preaching a message that was more tolerant to others, and becoming more accepting (especially to the LGBT community), I was released from my ordination.

            Now, I don’t reject most of the Bible. I do reject a literal translation. I read the Bible in a different manner than you do. I see much of it as mythological, and tend to take the opinions of scholars on the subject in consideration when interpreting. In fact, much of my reading comes from Catholic scholars, especially when it comes to the Gospel of John. In fact, the ideas that I have regarding the Bible are much of the same ideas that are taught in mainstream seminaries (including Catholic seminaries). So again, I don’t reject much of the Bible, I simply read it differently then you do.

            Yes, I don’t accept the miracles in the Bible as being historically accurate. But I do think that they have a theological message that can be gleamed, and I think that they have a purpose. I just don’t accept them as historically accurate.

            Also, I don’t think that the Acts of the Apostles is false. I just don’t think that it is historically accurate when it comes to Paul. That doesn’t mean it is false, it just isn’t historically accurate. And it can’t be as it contradicts what Paul states, and in fact, much of the Bible contains contradictions. So that has to be taken into consideration, and that influences how I read the Bible. Something does not have to be historically accurate in order to be true.

            Also, I don’t think that Christians need to become Jews to follow Jesus. I don’t think they need to be circumcised or follow dietary laws. Christianity is no longer the movement that Jesus first started, or even what Paul expanded on. However, if one reads what Jesus said, it was a Jewish message, for a Jewish audience. What he was preaching was not Christianity, but Judaism. After he died, the movement began changing until it eventually evolved into what we have today.

            And again, much of what I state is what many preachers agree with. Some of my ideas are out of the mainstream, but the vast majority can be found in the scholarly articles written by a variety of preachers (both Protestant, and Catholic and Orthodox).

            As for what denomination I would preach in. I could within the Lutheran church (more liberal strands). But I’m looking at Progressive Christianity and Old Catholicism. In addition, I’m not going to theology school. I’m majoring in religious studies, which is different.

            Now, there was a mention of my website and that I take donations. That has to be taken into context, and the person who pulled it up obviously didn’t (and I don’t see why people are continually bringing my website up if they are unwilling to actually read what it says). I run a social/religious tolerance company. I do a variety of lectures throughout the state (and outside) as well as consultation work. I provide lectures on topics related to skepticism, such as exposing how psychics actually work.

            I work off of donations, as I provide many of my lectures to nonprofits (where I don’t take a fee) or for reduced fees. In order to do that, I take donations.

            I think the problem that some are having is that they took a very little bit of information about me, misunderstood it, then exaggerated it, and pretended that it was who I am. Not really correct though.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Dustin 7:33 Thank you for sharing with us your jouney through the world of religion. It is facsinating indeed.

            “Again, much of what I state is what many preachers agree with…the vast majority can be found in the scholarly artices written by a variety of preachers (both Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox).”

            That is my impression also, although my background is limited. It seems to me the main thrust of contemporary studies by those “not in the tank”, i.e., apologists, is that the Bible is mostly myth, was never intended to be taken literally but contains some limited wisdom for how people should live. This overview so fits today’s contemporary society where people like to figure things out for themselves rather than be told by stuffy preachers or moralistic authors the “truth”. As one author I quoted a couple of years ago said, “We are approaching a time when preachers are not producers of theology, but consumoers. Increasingly, people in the pews consider themselves equals and have no problem straightening out preachers who are ‘wrong’.”

            My position is it has always been that way, denominations steering their theologies away from views the public does not like and towards the more favorable. But, increasingly this is rising to the policy level. It seems to me this is what I hear in the United Church of Christ.

            Thank you, again, for taking the time to participate in our lively forum here.

          • entech says:

            That your initial attempt to convert to Judaism was rejected is a good example of the difference. Jews don’t go looking for converts (except internally) in fact, I believe you have to do a lot of study and convincing that you actually know what and why you are doing it. Rather different from a Billy Graham in the middle of a football stadium cajoling people to make a commitment.
            Your last paragraph accurately represents a few regular contributors.

            Good luck in your quest.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “Unlike what Henry has said elsewhere, I did not practice 5 or so religions in about a decade.”

            My apologies. I was wrong. I see it now is actually six religions:
            1. “Fundamentalist Christian”
            2. Islam
            3. Judaism
            4. Atheist
            5. “Agnostic Theist”
            6. “Christian/Liberal Lutheran”

            Again, my apologies.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “Now, there was a mention of my website and that I take donations. That has to be taken into context, and the person who pulled it up obviously didn’t”

            Wow! I am linking your donation website to a very popular blog, and I don’t so much as get a thank you. Rather, I get scorn. Your fruit is very bitter.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “So when I was finally ordained, unbeknownst to my minister, I was an atheist. “
            Your story is rapidly changing. You previously said your ordination was rejected.
            http://www.belzian.com/about-the-founder/
            “However, by then, he had also fallen away from the fundamentalist view point, which would eventually end with his ordination being rejected.”
            If your ordination was rejected, it would appear you were never ordained. Now, you say you were ordained. Perhaps you meant your ordination was removed.

          • entech says:

            Henry 1:38
            Growing up, Dustin was immersed in the Christian religion. He was brought up in a fundamentalist household, and a great amount of focus was placed on his religious life. Eventually, Dustin went the way of studying to become an ordained minister, and 8 years later, at the age of 18, accomplished just that. However, by then, he had also fallen away from the fundamentalist view point, which would eventually end with his ordination being rejected.

            Henry your selective quotes are so typical of people that need to make a point or win an argument, it finally resolves to total dishonesty. Take the entire paragraph, you always rabbit on about context when a brief Biblical quote is given. I could take a little, like, Dustin went the way of studying to become an ordained minister, and 8 years later, at the age of 18, accomplished just that Exactly the opposite to the false impression you propagate.

            The way you distort things is called “bearing false witness” in some circles

          • Avatar of Dustin White Dustin White says:

            Henry- I do find your misrepresentation endearing. First, there is really no way that I practiced six religions in a decade. At most, one could get three, and that is only if one wanted to skew the numbers. Again, atheism is not a religion. Agnostic theism is not a religion. I also didn’t say I was Lutheran. As for being Progressive, that actually is encompassed in agnostic theism. I don’t see why you want to lie about me though.

            And my story never changed, it just seems as if you are either purposely misreading what I have said, or having a hard time following. I was ordained. I ministered. And then my ordination was rejected, or as I also said, I was released from it. The point being, I’m no longer ordained in that church. As in, my ordination was rejected, or stripped away.

          • Henry says:

            endwreck: “The way you distort things is called “bearing false witness” in some circles”

            No sin to seek clarification from fuzziness. I guess we now know Dusty was an ordained minister.

          • Henry says:

            Dusty: “I do find your misrepresentation endearing. First, there is really no way that I practiced six religions in a decade.”

            “Decade” is a term you used. I believe I used approximately 11-12 years. If we are talking 13 years, so be it. Fine.

            You are into your sixth religious transformation/ religion/whatever. I apologize for previously shorting you.

        • Henry says:

          I am a minority opinionator on Jon’s “freethinker” pro-abort, pro-gay, pro-atheist website. I don’t hold myself out to be tolerant…..

          However, you do.

      • entech says:

        does pro-life include banning the death penalty

        • Henry says:

          Yes. We can alternatively ship them off to a prison island somewhere down under utilizing a leaky ship with a dark hold if possible.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Trick question? I’m assuming you mean a personal opinion, (mine).”Does pro life include banning the death penalty;” Yes, most definetly. What is the ratio of pro-choice people in favor of the death penalty, compared to those who are against it? This I would like to know.

          • entech says:

            No trick just a query. Only two answers and about what I would have expected.

            Your counter query about the ratio.proportion is an interesting one and I too would like to have some idea.

        • Stanta says:

          If life in prison MEANT life is prison I would agree with banning the death penalty. There are some who should NEVER be released but some judge somewhere or a governor or president will think a murder has served there debt to society and will release them.

          • entech says:

            Good to see that you don’t agree with your church on everything.

          • Stanta says:

            Wrong again Entech. The Catholic Church condones execution in general, but in a situation where the guilt is certain, and it is not possible to remove them safely and permanently from the innocent population, the death penalty is warranted. There are some individual priests who may disagree. So I am in complete accordance with the Catholic Church.

            I am also of the belief that if attacked or I observe someone being attacked I am within bounds to kill the attacker if I feel they are/will endangering my own life or the victims and there is no other way to stop them. Also in accordance in the Catholic church.

            The Commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” which is different then “Though shall not kill.”

          • entech says:

            It seems that while possible as a last resort it should be extremely rare. Rather like my position on the issue of abortion.

            http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-end-the-death-penalty/

          • Stanta says:

            If abortion WAS rare there would probably be less kick back against it. Unfortunately it seems to be profitable

            1. PP North Texas, Dallas, TX (salary of previous CEO) $324,381
            2. PP Mar Monte, San Jose, CA (Linda Williams) $315,950
            3. PP Illinois, Chicago, IL (salary of previous CEO) $302,014
            4. PP Hudson Peconic, Hawthorne, NY (Reina Schiffrin) $296,908
            5. PP Northern New England, Williston,VT (Steve Trombley) $292,297
            6. PP Orange & San Bernadino, Orange, CA (Joe Dunn) $278,871
            7. PP Treasure Coast, West Palm Beach, FL (Lillian Tamayo) $275,238
            8. PP MN, SD & ND, St. Paul, MN (Sarah Stoesz) $268,710
            9. PP Heartland, Des Moines, IA (Jill June) $265,389
            10. PP Southern New England, New Haven, CT (Judy Tabar) $264,766
            11. PP Great Northwest, Seattle, WA (Chris Charbonneau) $259,405
            12. PP League of MA, Boston, MA (Dianne Luby) $256,474.

          • entech says:

            OK. They are being well paid by the standards you and I go by, but what would the equivalent salary be for an equivalent medical clinic, say cataract operations, arthroscopy or the dreadful colonoscopy.

            Hard to find any figures but the ones you mention don’t seem too extraordinary for the job.

          • Stanta says:

            The are administrative positions. Nice work if you can get them.

            I still have to believe your definition of rare is different from mine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>