Curious About Religious Views...

i'm very religious, but my religion doesn't dictate my stance. i'm vehemently pro-choice, and while middle-of-the-road on many issues, i can't be gentle and reasonable about this one. the notion that anyone wants to dictate what a woman should and can do with her own body makes me very, very cranky.
there are many nuances to the immigration question that make it a very gordian knot nightmare.
but i do have to crone-glare at hypocrites who think fetuses are sacred, but children (at least brown ones) are just an expensive drain on taxpayers and should....what? be shot at the border?
khairete
S.

When I saw my first photos of the immigrant children, I cried. I kept thinking, "who sends their babies off!" It truly broke my heart.

There is no logic or reason to right wing positions. No point trying to make sense of any of it.

In my opinion, too many people are pro-birth... Not pro-life. If they were truly pro-life, then there would be a LOT more attention brought to the thousands of children who are homeless, hungry, growing up in foster care or orphanages. Once that baby is born, it's time to move on to the next pregnancy, with no regard to the welfare of said baby.

I don't really eat the reference to refugee children... One issue has nothing to do with the other. Completely separate issues.

I listened at some length to the Archbishop of the Diocese of El Paso today, and he had excellent points on this humanitarian crisis. These are not Mexicans, first of all. These are refugees sent by their parents who scrape together every last sent they can and often are dealing with human traffickers out of total and complete desperation. This is not unlike the Jewish parents in 1939 who tried to send their children out of Germany. If parents do these kinds of risky things, they must be even more terrified of what they face if they do nothing. The Archbishop said agrees with many humanitarians familiar with the situation who said that the US has to accept responsibility for the narco-traffickers who are emboldened and funded by the US insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. These cartels have taken over El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, killing wantonly on sight.

75 years ago, in 1939, the St. Louis carried 937 Jews to Cuba. They spent every last dime and only saved a few members of each family for this trip. They didn't have any papers either, or at least not fully legal ones. Cuba wouldn't accept them, neither would the US or Canada, so the ship cruised the oceans looking for a place to discharge the passengers. Finally England took only a few. The rest went to France, Belgium and Holland in whatever numbers were "acceptable" to those countries who had prejudices against them. Many wound up in concentration camps when those countries were overtaken by the Nazis.

So here we are again today, with people screaming about not wanting "those children" or "those people" who want to come and take our jobs and never learn English, blah blah. Same bigotry, different group, same lack of understanding.

It's true that we don't take care of our own people. It's not true that we can't, only that we don't. We don't pay a living wage, we don't, um, offer universal health care, we complain about people needing school lunches and SNAP just to survive, but we don't blink at executive salaries and foreclosures or a thousand other things that really take all the money. Like subsidies to big companies, tax loopholes, off-short accounts, and more.

These refugees are not the cause of our own citizens' poverty.

On Hobby Lobby - the religious views of the employer trump the religious views of the employees. If your Orthodox Jewish employer refuses to pay for a heart valve that comes from a pig, if your Christian Scientist employer refuses to pay for your medical care, if your Jehovah's Witness boss refuses to pay for your transfusions, you have to support that if you support the Hobby Lobby decision. So you would also support Sharia Law, right, if a Muslim owner wanted to impose it on employees in the workplace.

Just because HL pays for "SOME" contraception doesn't mean it's their business what you, your doctor and your values decide. I'm outraged when someone below comments that IUDs are dangerous - there is NO method of contraception (and no abortion) that is as dangerous as childbirth or dozens of surgeries that you think are okay.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. It makes no sense for people to weigh in on refugees and immigration when they don't know what's going on. Same with medical care. You can't get the facts in just 5 minutes on Facebook. Sadly, a lot of people do.

Right wing hypocrites who are constantly railing on the government poking it's nose into our personal lives have no problem with intrusion when it furthers their own belief system. Those beliefs are often religious ones.

Seems they have a hierarchy of who (or what) deserves rights in this society. Fetuses come in a easy first, corporations next. Bringing up the rear is women who would like to privately decide when to have a baby and brown skinned children fleeing violence and extreme poverty in SOUTH AMERICA come in dead (no pun intended) last.

I respect the women on this site and love to hear their opinions and views! It is good to hear both sides but also realize there are just some things we will never agree on.

Personally I think it is a parents' job to protect the life of their own children--born or unborn. Religion and/or politics does not dictate my view on this. Being a mom does. I believe with all my heart and soul that life begins at conception, not some magical moment in the womb when the law dictates it is okay to abort. When my pregnancy test came back positive that was my baby in there. I think that many years from now people are going to look at our society and think it barbaric for what we have done to our own children. The safest place for a baby should be in it's mother's womb. I don't think it is just the mother's body we are discussing when we talk about abortion. There is another human being that is denied the chance at having it's own life. We all started out the same way, but some of us were lucky enough to have parents that chose to let us come into the world.

To the point about your post, your friend is an idiot. Please let her know that the Catholic Church is pro-life and they are also stepping up to take care of the children coming across the border.

added after reading below: Hobby Lobby isn't telling women what to do with their bodies, they just don't want to pay for it. Hobby Lobby employees can get all the morning after pills they want, they just have to cough up the money on their own-gasp!

I'm atheist, but I'll throw in my two cents.

I don't think fertilized eggs are people. I think Hobby Lobby's owner is misinformed if he believes that morning after pills or IUD's cause abortions. At least he's covering MOST forms of prescription birth control for his employees, which is better than none. There are certain meds my insurance doesn't cover, and if I need them, I have to pay for them out of pocket.

Obviously, refugee kids are people. Kids or not, people who come into this country illegally need to be sent back.

As to the gist of the quote, I think there are a lot of religious people who focus too heavily on getting fetuses gestated and born, and not enough on the children who have already been born and are in need.
I think that they need to keep their noses out of the uteri of strangers.
If they want to "save the children," let them focus on the ones that are already born.

Sorry, my opinion? Your friend is ignorant and sounds like a parroting liberal. That is NOT meant to be mean, but really? She obviously has no clue what she is talking about.

The Hobby Lobby case is NOT about abortion. It's about what they want to cover with their insurance.

The ILLEGAL immigrants are just that - ILLEGAL. I know liberals are using the word "undocumented" instead of ILLEGAL to make it easier to accept... but the fact is STILL they are here ILLEGALLY, they aren't refugees... they are ILLEGALLY here...

Let's not forget the USDA ENCOURAGED this by paying for a commercial encouraging Mexicans (ETA - Hispanics/South American) to come to America and participate in Food stamps....

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-me...

Tell your friend to get informed - do some research on her/his own - looking at more than MSNBC or CNN.... if she would look to media outside the US (like daily caller, Al jaherez, etc) might help her understand the difference between the situations... being informed is better than being ignorant... that's my opinion!!

Here's a thought: Personal responsibility. It can be applied to both. In the abortifacient/contraceptive issue, take personal responsibility for yourself. If you want a particular method of birth control that is not covered by your insurance plan, figure out how to get what you want. Save up, choose a less expensive choice, choose something that IS covered under your plan, etc. It's your choice how to proceed there.

Not funding something is not stopping someone from exercising their choices. Home schoolers do not get money to pay for their homeschooling, do they? You choose to take your kid out of the public school and put them in private school, or teach them at home and you are on your own. No funding by third party. Sorry. But the parent still has the choice. Can't afford private school, and your public school sucks? Too bad. Figure it out. Choose to home school, or find scholarships, or keep them in public school, get a third job. But you aren't getting a voucher to spend however you want... oh no!

Same thing with the border. There are legal ways of coming into this country. If your situation at home is so desperate that you don't care about the law, then act to rectify that situation at home.

Do I have compassion for the children sent away from their families? Of course. Do I recognize that there HAVE to be limits to what we can do? Yes.
Do I have a perfect solution? No. But I will say that there would likely be a lot more willingness in the populace to give refuge to these children if the REST of the issues on our southern border were not in such a disgraceful mess. It is ridiculous that our border is not in any way secure and we are arguing over these children. I'm pretty sure that no one would care (in the sense that we'd all be willing to do what we can/could) what we needed to do to help these refugee kids, IF there was any confidence whatsoever that it wasn't just "more of the same" in terms of letting anyone who gets across come and stay. That is how it is viewed. Thousands upon thousands come across annually and nothing has changed. And now there are all these children as well. Secure the refugee kiddos, and shut the gate to everyone else! 3. something BILLION dollars... I am pretty sure we could accomplish some border security with that. But no one, at this point, trusts the government to actually DO anything about the border. THAT is why the refugee situation is so divisive. Because it isn't about the refugees, so much as the ongoing failure to do ANYTHING about securing our border.

Which, sort of, brings us back to personal responsibility. Want people to focus on the actual refugees and not "illegal immigrants"? Let's see the government act responsibly for a change and secure the border. Pretty sure that our nation's defenses (which includes controlling our borders, does it not?) is one of the FEW specifically delineated federal powers/responsibilities... you know.. the reason we even HAVE a federal government, instead of a bunch of independent states...

To me, I think she's pointing out a popular conservative contradiction, and it might be less about religion, but rather the "use" of religion as a political defense.

One simple fact, is that conservative Republicans talk loudly of wanting less government interference...until it comes to something that they personally believe in, like wanting to ban abortion. Then it's totally fine for the government to tell people how to live.

I'll say no more. But I understand your friend's seeming criticism.

The statement your friend made is making assumptions. From the constitutional standpoint, an employer is not required to provide insurance or anything other than a days pay for a days work. Why do so many think that insurance is an obligation and not a benefit as it has been so aptly named? The owners of Hobby Lobby should have the freedom to GIVE what they want to. Yes, I do believe that life begins at conception and even if I was confused over the issue I would hope that I would want to err on the side of caution and allow someone to live....vs. erring on the other side and taking a life. I can't speak on behalf of the Greens thoughts on these refugee children but I bet my paycheck that they have genuine compassion for them. The government is doing the deporting, not the church.

My two cents...
M.

I am religious, have gone to church for years, and believe in God. To be honest, I do not believe life starts at conception, and I am not happy with the Hobby Lobby ruling. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, and also believe that Hobby Lobby has no right to refuse contraception coverage. Birth control pills are often used for other reasons than just birth control, they are often used for medical issues, and it's time for places likeHobby Lobby to understand that.

Religion and a business has no business telling me, as a woman, what medications I can take, and what to do with my body. I also realize that I have choice of where to work, and I will not ever work at Hobby Lobby, nor will they get my business. My church feels the same.

As for the quote, to me it does not make sense to me. Where does your friend get the idea refugee kids aren't kids? Frankly, I don't see where religion fits into her quote. I am more concerned about refugee kids than whether or not ultra conservative religious people, which obviously I am not, believe life begins at conception. We need to focus on those who are living here and now, not on those may be "potentially born" by having sex.

This whole situation makes me mad.

All of this is happening for ONE reason: To make christian conservatives look bad so we can vote in more liberals this November. Also this takes the light off the IRS scandal, VA scandal, Hillarys Benghazi scandal etc.....ALL very important stuff.

So many people (even on this site) are misinformed about Hobby Lobby and Refugees. And comparing these 2 topics is like comparing apples to oranges.

I would love this question answered; President Obama asked for 3.8 billion dollars to house these 30,000 refugees for one year. If these 30,000 refugees split 3.8 billion dollars they would be some of the wealthiest in the US, aka they would be 1 %. I thought liberals hated the 1% even though a lot of the 1% are liberals.

As for Hobby Lobby. They don't get any government money like GE does or all these windmill companies, or electric cars or all liberal goofy idea companies. My take is if I own my own company, I should make the decision if I want to provide insurance and the details in it. The best part is that just because people work for Hobby Lobby they are not bound to just their insurance, they can get it from somewhere else, there are TONS of options here.

I think your friend has more limited, ill informed views than the religious people she chastises.

The Hobby Lobby family pay for most forms of birth control. They have never withheld any treatment from a woman, they just won't PAY for it. Hyperbole is the weapon of simple minds.

These are solid Christian people.
Want to go to college in OK? There's a lot of buildings paid for by that family, not to mention all other charity work that improves the lives of women. They pay quite a bit over minimum wage to their workers. You don't want to support them? It's a free country...

Who's caring for these children coming across the border? Quite a few are being helped by Catholic charities and other faith based groups.

You want to invite the world's people's to America, wait, we already have a legal way to enter the US.

Pro Life, you bet.

I think likening refugees to the Hobby Lobby decision is kind of a stretch, and you really don't need to look that far to find hypocrisy in the decision.

The same people who want to outlaw the 'morning after' pill are fine with regular birth control pills. But if you miss a couple days of regular birth control and then double up a couple days to cover the missed pills (as per instructions for most birth control pills), *thats the exact same thing as the so-called 'morning after pill'*.

Also, the employee 401(k) plan, for which Hobby Lobby matches employee contributions, has more than $73 million invested in mutual funds, several of which invest in manufacturers of contraception, including some forms which are specifically named in the complaint.

Oh, and Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives to employees as part of their insurance plan until September 2012, when it became politically convenient to decide they were 'religiously' against it.

And on and on...

I agree with your friend that moral consistency is key. My (Catholic) parish is both overwhemingly pro-life and pro-immigrant. It is a very racially & ethnic diverse parish, but I don't think that it is particularly unusual for Catholic communities to be both pro-life and pro-immigrant when seen through the lens of social justice (falling under the seamless garment idea). Often the young families supported through our clothing and food closets are undocumented and facing unplanned pregnancies. In a decade with this parish, I've never heard our priests make a single sermon against the actions these young people have taken to try to improve or stabilize their lives. I hope it will continue to be a safe place for all regardless of these political debates.

People seem to think Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for ALL birth control. They aren't! You have 16 other options to choose from AND they aren't saying you can't work there if you have an IUD or use the morning after pill, they're just saying they don't want to pay for it! I support a private business in their decision on what they want to pay for. Don't like it? Don't work there. As for illegal immigrants- I feel for the kid's, I really do. Perhaps their parent's or guardians should attempt to enter the country legally, as my husband's parents chose to...

ETA: Why are some saying Hobby Lobby is preventing women from doing anything or getting between them and their medical care? I'll say it again, they aren't! They're just saying they won't pay for it. Many of you 'd be outraged if the government was forcing you to pay big bucks for something you found morally wrong, but Hobby Lobby is supposed to do it?

Can you imagine sending your child away? Can you try to imagine how awful life would have to be for you to send your 8 or 9 (yes, some are teens) year old on a terrifying journey across multiple international borders ALONE before you would do that? Do you believe that these parents love their children any less than you love yours? I don't. If these parents believe that life for their children is/will be so horrible that they are willing to make this sacrifice for them, how can we as human beings (insert Christians if you so believe) do anything less than take these children in?

I think your friend is seeing 'Christians' advocating just sending these children back. Listening to people in the town of Vassar (where a refugee center is being set up) talk about how they think these children will bring dirt and disease to their small town, I was absolutely horrified. And to be honest the first thought I had was 'and these people call themselves Christian'. So, I 100% see what your friend is saying.

As far as Hobby Lobby, I don't think think your friend is equating the two issues. I think she is using them as two separate examples of religious hypocrisy. The Hobby Lobby case basically says that the 'religious' values of a corporation count more than the religious values of employees. I suspect most 'conservatives' would be up in arms if the issue was Hobby Lobby denying coverage for blood transfusions or basic surgery to employees based upon their religious beliefs. In reality, most people accept a job knowing that it includes health care. They do not get down to the nitty gritty of what that truly means until after they sign a contract and head off to human resources to get their new employee packet.

ETA - Or we could simply shoot the kids - as advocated by another poster. That might be more Christian (well only historically).

It's a cute sound bite, but it only make sense if you're not paying attention. There is no one saying refugees aren't children. They are disagreeing with the children being brought here. I get what they are saying and don't even disagree, but they're saying it poorly. I'm in line with the sentiment politically, but it credits no one to falsely attribute stupidity to the other side. Marie C says it much more accurately - if you are truly pro life, then support the families that choose to have the baby. The same people against abortion are often the same people against welfare, sex education, and birth control. Kind of hard to justify that, in my opinion.

Well, as far as the Hobby Lobby thing, I have decided to incorporate my uterus, so it can have rights, too.

These refugee kids. It's just a horrible, complex situation. Someone said something about adoption? That could be a very positive outcome for at least some of these babies and families who want children. I can't even imagine how bad, how unsafe it would have to be for me send my child to another country.

As far as the quote goes. I totally get it. It is snarky and makes a point. But, it is still snarky to make a point, which is not always the best way to go. Seems I have caught the hypocrisy bug (see incorporated uterus statement above).

What the heck does that have to do with anything? Honestly, the quote doesn't make sense. That's my take on it. And this isn't a religious issue. Neither of them are. They're humanitarian/humanist issues.

As for the Hobby Lobby issue: They are still paying for contraception. 16 kinds. The Hobby Lobby issue is about religious freedom, not access to birth control.

ETA: Laurie, thank you for educating me better on the refugee situation. How very sad. I've changed my opinion on the matter. Not hard to do when you finally have some facts instead of media spin. It's difficult to know these days what's truth and what's politics. ♥

The hobby lobby issue is not one of pro life per say. The Hobby lobby issue is one of protecting one's conscientious objections/ religious rights. Whither you agree with the person who does not want to be forced to act against their conscience or not.

Example: you may believe that abortion should be legal and have no moral issue with it. But you do not agree that OBGYN's should be forced to perform optional abortions if they have a moral dilemma. You don't have to be in agreement to protect the right of the person who is in a moral dilemma just because you wouldn't be.

Your friend's post is the type of hyperbole that causes me to "unfollow" someone so their stuff doesn't show up in my FB feed.

I don't have any problem with opposing POVs. I just don't want to read regurgitated talking points offered in the form of sweeping generalizations that have little basis in reality. I don't like those posts from liberals or conservatives.

Both of the issues are much more complex.

JMO.

Your friend's comments make no sense to me. It sounds like she is talking about apples and hand grenades. One thing has nothing to do with the other or perhaps I missed something in the interpretation or the news.

I think that your friend is confusing two different issues and is very misinformed to try to lump the two controversies together. And when I read some of these responses and the misinformation that is displayed on here, I am saddened that people don't know the facts or don't want to know the facts of the situation and that applies to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Ruling and the situation at the US border.

First of all, I am pro-choice, believe in abortion, and do NOT think fertilized eggs are people.

But I don't see the comparison. We are not "terminating" those children. We are simply returning them to their rightful home. Their parents should not have brought/sent them here and when they did so, they knew the possible consequences. What is it we always advocate here for kids - natural consequences. This could be a learning experience for the children - if I want to be in the U.S., I need to get there legally! Why should the children benefit from the crimes of their parents and why should we pay for those children to reap such a benefit? We don't allow other criminals to benefit from crime. Yes, there is poverty where they came from - but there is poverty here also. Until EVERY legitimate U.S. child has a roof over their head, we have no business putting a roof over some refugee's heads! Just go out to a homeless camp one night and count the number of children there. Or go sit in truancy court in your cozy hometown and see how many mothers are there because they were homeless and had no way to get their children to school. And then watch the court impose punitive sanctions on them! Hell, they can't afford to eat, let alone pay a court fine. But do we care? Is there any help offered? Absolutely not!

Nope, those kids need to stay where they belong so we can use our resources to help OUR kids first!

The immigration issue - regardless of the age of the immigrants - recognise an invasion when you see one.
These people - regardless of their ages - are not our countries responsability.
I don't know why they think things will be better for them here but they need to get a handle on how their own country works (or doesn't work) and fix the problems they are having.
It's not up to us to lead their revolution.
Perhaps we need a better PR message stating that coming to the USA is NOT a fix for anyones problems. - they will be turned away - hopfully quickly.
I don't even think we should be responsible for sending them home - not our problem - but it keeps them from standing at the border.
Can we take in all 7 billion humans on the planet?
I think most would answer 'No'.
And so we agree in principle that there must be limits.
What's left is coming to an agreement on what those limits should be and the arguements surrounding that issue are endless.

As for birth control/abortion - I had the number of kids I could be responsible for.
I don't want to be responsible for any more.
If the people who concieved the life are not interested in raising him/her - I am perfectly fine with them aborting it.
I don't believe in forcing people to have a baby they don't want.
When people are having recreational sex - they are in it for the good time.
18 years of responsibility is not what they had in mind.

God supposedly gave people free will.
What each individual chooses is between them and their God.
Denying birth control/abortion to people who want it is stepping on God's toes.
People who oppose their choices need to trust in their God to sort everyone out.

I delete hate mail so don't bother.

Who doesn't think refugees are people???

I don't know what the 'Hobby Lobby' issue is, but it sounds like a stupid comment intended to create a stupid fight.

For the record, I'm not religious, I love refugee children, and I believe in the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.