I would add that religious attacks on education are destructive in numerous ways. Religious attacks on evolution, on requirements for the defense of specific ideas, etc. are attacks on education in general. By depreciating education we lead toward lack of national compettiveness, poorer public policy decisions, less understanding of government, poorer understanding of economics, less knowledge concerning specifi problems (like poverty, infrastructure, etc.). This is especially pernicious in that these attacks can't come with positive ideas for improvement.
The arguments I've seen on this tend to focus on methods that are simply NOT USED! Also, there has been serious improvement in dating over the last decades that tends to get ignored when searching for support for young earth. Serious dating includes use of more than one method in the family of radioisotope dating, carefully selected to be as accurate as possible for the specific site and object composition. If you think there is anything remotely like support for young earth, please cite it.
Those are political issues. You will find theists in both parties. I don't view them as religious issues at all.
It is impossible to impose beliefs. It is possible to change one's mind but that isn't an imposition.
Wrong! Politicians NEVER wanted to touch abortion until AFTER the religious right (then known as the "moral majority") was co-opted by the GOP and abortion was used as a WEDGE issue to drive evangelicals to the polls to vote for the GOP. When these evangelicals were elected to office as members of the GOP they legislated their homophobia in the DOMA act which was yet another WEDGE issue to drive evangelicals to the polls to vote for the GOP.
Wrong again! DOMA was an IMPOSITION of theist beliefs upon the nation and so are the current attempts to ban abortion. If you research the origins of Prohibition you will discover that it was a theist imposition. School prayer and teaching "creation science" are other examples of theists attempting to impose their beliefs in the nation.
Ah you can read minds. Theists beliefs motivate these laws in every single case. sheesh. It is politics. Vote for the policies you support. Let others do the same.
This is still a nonsensical response. Obviously, our law IS a political issue. In this case, theists want to impose their ideas on the rest of us by using the law as their TOOL. The issue you are faced with is that they search out and USE these methods for imposing their religious belief on the rest of the population.
Again, this is total garbage. Politics is their METHODOLOGY. And, they state clearly why they want these laws against women. Those interested in using laws against women are not hiding their reasoning or their beliefs. They state their reasoning. That's what we saw with same sex marriage, too. There WERE NO arguments EXCEPT religious arguments in that case. Read the transcripts and court decisions. While there was legal maneuvering and issues of tactics, the ONLY root reason for opposing same sex marriage was purely religious. And, your "every single case" thing is fallacious argument and a cheap dodge.
They aren't imposing their religion. They are trying to stop what they view wholesale murder. I'm not religious at all but I agree with them in this matter. It is politics.
Abortion isn't the best example, as one might come to the conclusion that laws against women are justified even though other nations do better than we do with NO laws against women. Obviously that doesn't make sense, but we see it happening. So, the issue of abortion law is debated with poor logic and with serious religious influence. Perhaps better examples are how religion works against science including in education, using political methods and how religion works against the LGBTQ community with NOTHING other than their religion as argument, using politics as their weapon.
This is an excellent example of what this thread is meant to cover. You say you are not religious so lets see WHY you deny or do not agree with the science which clearly defines the stages of gestation and thus eliminates the possibility of "Murder" as understood and defined by law?
You are wrong. The science defines the stages of fetal development clearly. I studied morphology as a part of my degree in biology so I am familiar with it - possibly moreso than you are. It does not define a fetus as anything other then human nor does it state that killing it is killing something non-human. Whether or not it is moral to abort a fetus is not a scientific subject. It is a political one. It seems to me that you are getting your science from political sources.
There are many many non religious people who are against the gay community. I am not one of them. I realize it is a religious thing to some people but it is not by all. It is often a general distrust and dislike of people who aren't like them. It is a fairly common human weakness. But to the point, unless you are a member of that community religion simply shouldn't affect you. And, as far as I can see, the religious angst about LGBTQ is losing out to the law which is helping the community.
Using word games like using "human" sometimes as a noun and sometimes as an adjective does NOT help your argument. It's just a sign of weakness. As an adjective it applies to hair and fingernails. Our constitution uses "person". It conveys rights to "persons". And, it includes rights over ones own person. The issue here is whether the person has rights that include healthcare of the person's own body. And, there is ONLY ONE person in that question - even though there are cells that might possibly become a person in the future. A contributing factor is that laws against women is NOT the only means for reducing the number of abortions. So, one must ask why we IGNORE other methods that DO allow a constitutioan right over ones person as well as data from other countries that indicates that it's possible to have a lower abortion rate without ANY laws against abortion - in fact, having abortion being a covered healthcare expense.
Yes there are differences in religion. But, that isn't even slightly good enough, as for years these issues has been a major focus of the religious community, using politics as a weapon. And, whether I am LGBTQ is NOT even slightly the issue. Nobody gets a pass on promoting racist law - regardless of their race. Nobody gets a pass on promoting laws against LGBTQ simply because they are hetero. Nobody gets a pass on misogyny simply because they are male. AND, such laws DO affect ME, my family, my friends, those I work with, those I meet in stores. It's just preposterous to suggest it doesn't affect me simply because I'm a white hetero male. Do you really think I'm going to stop promoting equalty simply because the powers that use the law to attack equality appear to be losing?? And, can you really suggest racism, xenophobia, religionism, women's rights, and anti-LGBTQ are LOSING when we have a PRESIDENT and a SENATE that absolutely support ALL these ideas?
Yes. I don't think you have been around long enough to see what it was like back in the 50's or 60's.
Again - the constitution uses "person". We should be talking about the rights of person. And, let's expand this to the actual objective - reducing the number of abortions. People aren't opposed to reducing the number of abortions. That's something the vast majority can agree on. So, the question is what methods to use. Any method needs to be justified in terms of the constitution, in terms of impact on the lives of women, in terms of actual effectiveness, in terms of realities related to factors such as how capable the government is in forcing solutions on women's lives, the many reasons for abortion, what happens when abortions are outlawed, etc.
Anyone who hasn't read about these issues and their history doesn't know SQUAT. And, this did not start in the 50's or 60's. In America, it started when we declared our independence and wrote a constitution.
