| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Next Culture War; Contraception | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 7 2006, 05:37 PM (911 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | May 8 2006, 09:38 AM Post #26 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Apparently it was. So, in the words of Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, explain it to me like I was a 7 yo. Specifically, what parts of the article do you take exception to? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | May 8 2006, 09:42 AM Post #27 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm a bit less sanguine on the subject. When people want to change the law to the extent that it enters our bedrooms, I find that cause for alarm. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 8 2006, 09:45 AM Post #28 |
|
MAMIL
|
Yes, but we're talking about the thoroughly asinine idea of banning contraception here. How many steps until we have female circumcision as a method of reducing sin? When does codified morality become codified stupidity? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 8 2006, 09:47 AM Post #29 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Actually, in our system of government, the law is a consensus among the people as to which rules we will impose upon ourselves. The law is NOT a small group of people imposing their narrow values system on the majority by requiring the majority to act in a specific way in one of the most personal aspects of their lives. You seem to be supporitng these people who want a law banning contraception, Jolly. Do you agree with them? Are you in favor of such a law? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 8 2006, 09:59 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
1. The law is dictated by a small group of people in our form of government...most elections are decided by less than 40% of registered voters. Candidates, while not quite still the product of smoky back rooms, are still elevated, or destroyed, by a very select few within the party. Kingmakers still exist in the background at all levels of government. 2. As to the contraception issue, I find it laughable. Only some idiot who didn't know the subject matter of what he was reading would put any credence into a NYT article written by someone who didn't know what the Hell he was talking about. I'm pretty familiar with evangelicals - I are one. I'm pretty familiar with fundamentalists - I are one. My father-in-law stands behind the pulpit in a very fundamental SBC church. Several of my first cousins hold the pulpit in churches that while not SBC, are still fundamentalist enough to give most of you the willies. In those churches, I can think of one family with seven children. One. Most folks have two, maybe three...what they can afford to raise. Nah, I'd worry more about the Catholics, was I y'all.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 8 2006, 10:03 AM Post #31 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Followed by:
I believe you just answered your own question. And I believe de Tocqueville called it the "tyranny of the majority". |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 8 2006, 10:06 AM Post #32 |
|
MAMIL
|
Catholics? All you Christians look the same to me.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| katie | May 8 2006, 10:15 AM Post #33 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I started to read the article. I think I need an abstract. And a good shot of wine ... Oh gosh .. I can't finish reading it. I'm already nauseated ( ... and there's no way I could be pregnant!) |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 8 2006, 11:31 AM Post #34 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Given the context of this thread, don't discount the possibility of divine intervention. :rolleyes: |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 8 2006, 12:26 PM Post #35 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well... I disagree with the stance taken by some in the article about "going after" contraceptives, equating their usage to that of abortion. While some might, I don't find any Biblical basis for that attitude. In fact, I find it a terrible position. But there really isn't any question about the truth of one of their underlying positions, as mentioned in the article. There is no question that the increased use of contraceptives - despite their immense benefit - has, in fact, made a person's objectification/exploitation of another person, for selfish gratification, much easier and widespread. And that does have a substantial negative effect on our society. We have fewer babies, but at the expense of having become more callous and disconnected with each other. We have a lot more sex, and a lot less intimacy. To me, that's the great danger here: the stupidity of the extension of their underlying belief makes it easier to discredit that underlying belief - as if it's as stupid as the extension itself. Of course, humans have never needed contraceptives, or the lack of them, to view each other as simply pieces of meat with interconnecting parts to use for their own personal pleasure. That's why these people - who start with an unarguably correct position - are mistaken in their battle against contraceptives. The problem isn't the existence of a pill or an ounce of latex. It's the mindset behind their use. Just as it's correct that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," it's equally true that "contraceptives don't objectify people; people objectify people." The battle should be to change the hearts and minds of those people, not restrict the condom industry. Rick, as to your amazement about why some people are "preoccupied" with issues of sexual sin, while they allegedly ignore other, social-justice types of sin: it's equally baffling how those who are keenly aware of social justice issues are often blind to these same issues of sexual sin, which are no less decried in scriptures. The laughable - or more accurately, the shameful - thing is that both camps should be working together, and understanding of the other. As believers, we all focus on different things that are wrong in the world, according to our faith. None of us can throw our efforts at every issue; we all are more naturally inclined to pursue ceertain issues while letting others pursue others. Rather than the two camps attacking each other, as if either one has the whole enchilada figured out and the other has missed the whole point - which has historically been the case, framed as a "liberal versus conservative," "mainline versus evangelical," or similar battle - both sides should actually be supportive of each other. Both camps are actually on the same side - and both camps are equally incomplete. I am, with a few notable exceptions, quite conservative in how I believe my faith should be lived out in daily life. Nevertheless, as you know, I'm also very active in working to help the ill and poor in a country in Central America. That makes me someone who doesn't fit in the patterns that the two camps always want to shoehorn their opponents into - and frankly, there are lots of people who simililarly don't fit into the stereotype you've offered. It also points out another big flaw in the whole stereotyping argument: just because I work with kids with AIDS in Honduras, but not in South Africa, doesn't mean that I don't care about kids in South Africa. It just means that I can only do so much, and my particular situation has led me to work where I do, and not other places. It's the same problem with your argument: emphasizing one area doesn't mean that a person doesn't care about another. Christian tradition has shot itself in the foot so grandly by picking these fights, instead of having any meaningful conversation among the various groups within the church. If both/all sides laid down their stereotypes - and their weapons - and listened to each other, the faith would advance by quantum leap. But that would mean that we'd have to rub elbows with... you know... peope who aren't like us, and we'd have to admit that the other folks actually have some good points. For what it's worth, there are two really good books that veer into this issue, one of which I've read recently and one I'm currently inthe middle of: "Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren, and "Resident Aliens" by Stanley Hauerwas. I think you'd enjoy both of them, if you haven't already read them. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 8 2006, 01:18 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Actually, it's a couple of ideas, one cynical, one pragmatic. I wouldn't take everything the Frenchman said as Gospel, although the majority should and must give the Republic direction. Tyranny is only an issue if the majority seeks to override one's Constitutional rights. In the general sense in which I am speaking of here, it is not tyrrany to formulate or direct policy. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | May 8 2006, 01:28 PM Post #37 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Most 18th Century constitutionalists and republicans understood this. Others, like the Jacobins, did not. My concern is that in this day and age our notion of conservatism appears to more akin to absolutisim than the constitutionalism of Edmund Burke. |
![]() |
|
| xenon | May 8 2006, 01:33 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Conservatives as Jacobins. Who'da thunk it? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 8 2006, 01:45 PM Post #39 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Which of course is how certain liberals want to portray the position in order to demonize conservatives. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | May 8 2006, 01:49 PM Post #40 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Not necessarily. Presently, what portrays itself as conservativism is unreserved radicalism. A true conservative, William F. Buckley, has rightly made that observation on more than one occasion as of late. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 8 2006, 03:38 PM Post #41 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If you've ever been to a Philadelphia Society meeting, you know that conservativism is a massive umbrella (or, better, circus tent). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 8 2006, 03:40 PM Post #42 |
|
MAMIL
|
And we all know what that funny smell is at the circus.... ![]()
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 8 2006, 05:44 PM Post #43 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That photo both explains why the Philly Soc is populated by Republicans, and where liberals come from. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 8 2006, 05:49 PM Post #44 |
|
MAMIL
|
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 8 2006, 06:05 PM Post #45 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I am going to disagree with you, Dwain. Men have seldom been objectified in Western society. It is women who have suffered this fate and I believe contraception has made it far less likely women will be objectified if only because it has freed tghem up to seek their own sexual satisfaction rather than simply wait around to satify their huseband's. It was not all that long ago, that women were considered, by law, the property of their husbands -- chattel, many laws considered them. They had no rights as women nor any as wives. Their job -- indeed their sole purpose throughout much of the history of western society -- was to keep the man's house running, serve her husband's need for food and clothing, bear the children (who he also owned -- especially the female children) and fulfill her "wifely duties" making sure her husband's sexual desires were satisfied when he wanted them satisfied. I don't think women could be any more objectified than this. Contraception has changed much in this society -- for the better in my opinion. But as for adding or increasing to the objectification, esepcially of women? Naw, I don't see it. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 8 2006, 06:15 PM Post #46 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I find, Dwain, that those who are religious and place a premium on social justice, see sexuality and the use of sex as part and parcel to their views of social justice. They view sexual exploitation as just as wrong as the exploitation of workers, the poor, the elderly, third world countries, etc. I think it likely can be argued, however, that they are more open to a variety of sexual expressions than conservatives are, including sexual expressions outside of wedlock. If this is what you consider as ignoring sexual sin, then you are correct. However, I don't think you can truly argue that they ignore sexual sin. They simply define it differently than those with a more traditional view do. A ther same time, Dwain, I agree with you that the true believer -- the one trying to live in accordance wioth what he/she believes God calls them to -- cannot ignore sin in one area of life while emphasizing it in other areas. The individual is called to a sense of morality by God and this morality must extend to all humen experiences. Anything we humans do can be done to the greater glory of God and anything we can do can be done in a manner which is sinful. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 8 2006, 06:31 PM Post #47 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You've got to be kidding, Rick. You don't think that women objectify men? Have you ever been the proverbial "fly on the wall" when a bunch of women are talking? The law is only one way that people are objectified or otherwise exploited, and even this is just institutionalization of the mindset that originated it. No, women are not some form of superhuman creature that doesn't objectify or use the opposite sex merely for their own selfish pleasure. It's always been a two way street. And while, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the widespread availablity of contraceptives has had a major benefit to our society, that benefit has come at the expense of making exploitation - of, and by, both men and women - much easier, and ultimately, more acceptable. This entire implications to society of this callousing of our souls is hard, if not impossible, to really quantify, but it nonetheless does exist. Is the benefit of widespread contraceptives worth this cost? I don't think that's a question we're equipped to ever really answer. Still, none of this means that I agree with these people's crusade against contraceptives. I'm only agreeing with their initial observation, which they then take in indefensible directions. And I was serious earlier; I think you'd enjoy both of those two books. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 8 2006, 06:47 PM Post #48 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"However, I don't think you can truly argue that they ignore sexual sin. They simply define it differently than those with a more traditional view do." And here you have expressed the kernel of an argument I've made many times, from the other side of the table, as it were. So often, those on the political left - whether we're talking about within the community of faith or not - simply demonize those on the right as being dismissive of, to continue the current example, social justice-related sins, if they do not stand up against specific initiatives that someone has espoused to fight those social wrongs. In fact, the right winger may be - and actually is, far more often than liberals often think - every bit as outraged about the particular social ill, but they do not feel the proposed approach to correct is is the best way to ultimately achieve the stated end. In other words, the right winger is not ignoring the problem, and he actually isn't even redefining it - he merely believes that a different way to approach the problem is better. It's the exact same. Both liberals and conservatives can hold and promote certain measures for sinful or immoral purposes - in other words, both liberals and conservatives can be immoral. But there is nothing inherently sinful or immoral about approaching a problem from either a liberal or conservative viewpoint. And I agree with the last part of your comment - but I again stress that, at least when discussing issues like this within, and as members of, the same family of faith, that we shouldn't assail or otherwise demean other members of the family simply because they have been led to champion one or another cause within the faith, which may be different from those causes that we have felt led to champion. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | May 8 2006, 06:50 PM Post #49 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I will agree with you Dwain, that men and women do the objectifying, but I believe the true objectification is by a small minority. I find such discussions as you mention more tongue-in-cheek rather than true expressions of the values of the people speaking. I suspect you and I have both been in discussions where we will speak oabout a person's physical endowments or their potential as a satisfying sexual partner, but never really meant it seriously, much less would act on it. The fact this is done -- and I suspect has always been done, especially by men -- is not indicative to me of any break down in the moral order; but rather an indication of an increased sexual freedom. As for the books -- I have already been to Amazon and ordered them <G> Now, when they get ehre, they will have to compete with all the other books I have waiting for me to read! LOL!!! |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 8 2006, 06:58 PM Post #50 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, enjoy the books. Hauerwas is a pacifist liberal weenie, much like yourself , and McLaren at least skews liberal; it occasionally creeps into both of their writing, but on the whole, they're quite balanced in their assessment of the state of the Christian faith and community as it finds itself today, and how, essentially, the left, the middle, and the right, has often gotten it partly right, but mostly wrong - and they both suggest new ways to move forward, each looking at the question from a slightly different angle. This is a postion I've been fleshing out in my own head for the past several years, so I can't credit them with completely turning my beliefs on end, but it is kind of neat to find validation in the writings of others. I don't agree with everything that they write, but the disagreements would fill a thimble compared to what I agree with. Don't let the possibility that you might enjoy and agree with the same books that I do scare you from reading them, though.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









, and McLaren at least skews liberal; it occasionally creeps into both of their writing, but on the whole, they're quite balanced in their assessment of the state of the Christian faith and community as it finds itself today, and how, essentially, the left, the middle, and the right, has often gotten it partly right, but mostly wrong - and they both suggest new ways to move forward, each looking at the question from a slightly different angle. This is a postion I've been fleshing out in my own head for the past several years, so I can't credit them with completely turning my beliefs on end, but it is kind of neat to find validation in the writings of others. I don't agree with everything that they write, but the disagreements would fill a thimble compared to what I agree with. Don't let the possibility that you might enjoy and agree with the same books that I do scare you from reading them, though.

10:47 AM Jul 11