Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control
Business Insider ^ | 8 February 2012, 4:39 PM | Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

Posted on 02/14/2012 8:49:20 AM PST by Jake from AZ

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I’m trying to be charitable.


21 posted on 02/14/2012 9:51:26 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ
Granted we need to keep birth rates at or above replacement levels; not doing that lays a country open to invasion.

Nonetheless all of the European wars after the middle ages have been fought by third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sons. At some point, if nobody practices birth control of any sort at all, you are basically breeding for war.

Gunnar Heinsohn is a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings precisely because his theories involving population youth bulges predict war and political unrest with near 100% accuracy.

22 posted on 02/14/2012 10:43:44 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

Someone from a talk show this morning brought this up: “If Planned “Non-Parent Hood” has been doing such a good job providing birth control as a public service then why the hell do we even need insurance to provide it?”


23 posted on 02/14/2012 11:02:08 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

What planet are you from? The Church and other religions and religious institutes have been setting moral standards [different] as long as they have been in existence. The thing is, you can’t tell me that Islam is wrong about it’s abhorrent medieval practices without undermining yourself and the Church.

You look to the right and you see Islam and you see evil, you look to the left and you see people with lower moral standards then you and you see evil.

What yardstick are you using? One of your own make. You’re not using the bible, that’s for sure.

God talks to me in spirit all the time, the spirit tells me to take care of my own soul and well being, and to help those that are like minded (spiritually) The spirit tells me to drop the old testament and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who tells us to obey the 10 commandments. The spirit tells me that any church that does any thing other than celebrate, worship, rejoice and share their joy in Him, is corrupt because it is a man made thing filled with man made ideas.

The government job is not to make accommodation for the church, but they should neither impose on the church. The church needs to make accommodations for the government, but not impose on the government.


24 posted on 02/14/2012 11:09:37 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000; Jake from AZ

As a fellow Protestant I concur. Our society’s acceptance of abortions and marriage redefinition would never have happened without it.

Protestants on Birth Control:

http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/08/protestants-on-birth-control.html

‘Martin Luther once proclaimed that “the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family.... People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage” (Christian History, Issue 39, p. 24). Luther also said that birth control was the equivalent of sodomy (probably because of the likeness between homosexual wickedness and impotent sex). John Calvin declared that birth control was the murder of future persons and the Synod of Dort issued a Bible commentary which stated that contraception was the same as abortion. If you are shocked, by the strong statements from these Godly men, that really is not too surprising, because Protestant opposition to birth control has largely been forgotten in our decadent 21th century.’

and the Washington Post of all sources on the evil of contraception back in 1931!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2613278/posts


25 posted on 02/14/2012 11:12:33 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

So much ignorance is displayed in your post that one is wondering if you are a troll.

It is an historic fact that a culture with a moral standard that approves of indiscriminate sexual couplings is not the best template building a civil society consisting of a prudent people who are capable of upholding any ideals beyond the satisfaction of libidos.

Self occupied in the childish pursuit of pleasure at all costs they really don’t give a fig if the world collapses around them while their freedoms are absconded one by one.

There is no domain from which exclusion of morality has resulted in more prosperity, more liberty, more charity, more happiness and more cooperation. The absence of morality has certainly sowed the seeds of destruction in many domains.

Whenever somebody blathers on about Patriarchy I have a wonderful clue that they do not bother to let facts get in the way of their utterances. You give an example of a very, very narrow time period of history or I should say an imagined history since at no time was it considered sinful for a woman to sing and dance in any and all circumstances. The mores of dress were determined more by what was common to prostitutes making it a common prohibition that godly women not imitate their mode of dress and behavior. Declaring that immodest dress and behavior is wrong is not repressive and narrow minded, it is too have a very good understanding of the workings of the world and how best to encourage and preserve self respect and dignity. What is regarded as immodest will change from culture to culture but the standards applied are usually about protection of privacy, especially of sexual privacy.

If you think the matriarchal method of governing was a kinder, gentler, more tolerant and freedom loving method you are very much mistaken. I’ll sum it up in one word “Moloch”. That is the matriarchal system that the evil patriarchal Hebrews encountered after their long trek across the desert. Butterflies and unicorns it wasn’t. You should also know that “Some anthropologists and authors hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal” though there were exception. It was also the nasty patriarchal system of governance in which concepts such as human rights and personal autonomy developed.

The Church is not imposing anything on the unwilling She is exercising her religion just as the 1st amendment declares She has every right to do so. Those women who want artificial birth control can still lockstep themselves down to PP and get a script or a package of condoms and pay for it themselves or get their own insurance which covers such costs. What they can not do is demand their Catholic employer provide it to them.


26 posted on 02/14/2012 11:14:11 AM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Many Protestants reject artificial means of contraception, and I applaud them.

Humane Vitae said it all, but to summarize the problem with The Pill simply and crudely, it’s the difference between using a woman as a sperm bank, or seeing her as a partner in raising children.

And liberals have the gall to say that induced sterility “liberates” women.


27 posted on 02/14/2012 11:29:09 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas (d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Calm down, I was being sarcastic.


28 posted on 02/14/2012 11:36:56 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

I would ask you what on earth you are talking about, but I’m sure you don’t know either.

But just to clarify ....

The Church warns of encroaching government, yet the opposite is more true, the church encroaches on government. This is far better historical fact than what you tried to present as historical fact — which was neither historical nor fact.

The government wants to allow gay marriage, make available contraception and abortions ... so be it. The government crosses the line when it tells church’s they must hire gay priests, perform abortions and provide contraception in their clinics, providing that that institute does not receive an iota of public funding.

So, if the church sticks it’s nose in the public trough, then they are subject to government rules and regulations.


29 posted on 02/14/2012 12:04:53 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


30 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


31 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


32 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I think your example of irony is incorrect. I don’t believe that a picture is more desirable, I believe those that have problems with porn, are unable to get a woman, or do not want the one they have. I doubt there are many users of porn, that want to look at pictures of women that look like their wives.


33 posted on 02/14/2012 1:16:38 PM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

The 1st amendment does not read if a person or religious body receives government monies they are necessarily excluded from exercising their religion without government interference. The mandate also applies broadly to include institutions that do not receive any funding. So your point is moot.

What I presented was fact and it was indeed historical fact. I am not too surprised that you did not recognize this.

Please show where under our Constitutional system of government that the “Church” has encroached into government. Are the clergy another branch of government of which I am unaware? Are there special judicial chambers established by the State to hear complaints dealing solely with matters of faith? Do we have trials for heresy in this country? Is there a faith clamoring to become the official religion of this country? Is Obama going on his knees to show that D.C. is worth the price of a Mass? I thought not.

I am curious what other limits do you want to set on our Constitutional rights based on receiving back our own money paid to the government in the form of taxes and fees? Should freedom of the press be curtailed if a government agency provided a tax incentive to hire local unemployed to work in the printing press? Should we accept being searched without a warrant and without probable cause if we receive Social Security Benefits? Should a preacher not be allowed to preach against gambling if his church receives a portion of local tax dollars to operate a soup kitchen?

Our rights are not doled out by a benevolent government as rewards of fidelity and compliance. They are not a matter of quid pro quo. If people do not understand that they deserve to have tyranny descend on this nation. We are not lackeys and lickspittles. Rights are part of the natural law and the editing of them is an assault on freedom.


34 posted on 02/14/2012 1:21:37 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

There are a lot of guys who don’t want the wives they have, or don’t like something about them. No image talks back, no image finds you inadequate.


35 posted on 02/14/2012 1:24:22 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

As Rush has pointed out many times. “government money” is really YOUR money, your money and your neighbor’s money. Therefore it ought not to travel very far from your pocket before it is spent. Federal money is collected far, far from home, and is spent by people far away from you by people you never got to vote far. The principle of subsidarity should be paramount: You money should go the 1) your family, 2) your church or lodge or local charity 3) your local governments, and only lastly to the Federal government.


36 posted on 02/14/2012 1:31:26 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

The only thing you got right there was:

“Our rights are not doled out by a benevolent government as rewards of fidelity and compliance.”

To bad though it had nothing to do with what was said. If you want to start another topic please do so under another topic.

And please, quit torturing history with your distorted views and representing [bad] opinion for fact.


37 posted on 02/14/2012 3:33:47 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

No image feels good either.


38 posted on 02/14/2012 3:43:36 PM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Show where anything I wrote was not based in fact. This is about the free exercise of religion, so the First Amendment has bearing on this matter.

You are the one who shows a serious want on the subject of history.

You also are the one who asserts that the right of the Church to practice Her religion is dependent on whether she accepts any government funding. That is a false assertion and a practice which would be a threat to liberty.


39 posted on 02/14/2012 4:23:49 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

The government simply won’t give churches the money if they don’t participate and toe the government line. That’s the way it works.

Oh, and it’s separation of Church *AND* State, not Church *OR* State. Just like it’s freedom *OF* religion not freedom *FROM* religion.

Oh and the government is to make no preference over any particular religion, if you don’t believe that and believe that Christianity should be prefered and first in line, go to Israel and talk to the wall.


40 posted on 02/14/2012 6:01:37 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson