Southern Baptists, the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians, voted at an annual gathering on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization.
…the resolution calls on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.â€
The resolution also called on Southern Baptists to “advocate for the government to restrain†actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.â€
What to Know About the Southern Baptists’ Vote Opposing I.V.F. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
At what point do these churches who “advocate for the government to restrain” lose their tax exempt status? Asking as a father of a child conceived via IVF paid for with my own post-tax dollars.
Southern Baptists, the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians, voted at an annual gathering on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization.
…the resolution calls on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.â€
The resolution also called on Southern Baptists to “advocate for the government to restrain†actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.â€
What to Know About the Southern Baptists’ Vote Opposing I.V.F. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
At what point do these churches who “advocate for the government to restrain” lose their tax exempt status? Asking as a father of a child conceived via IVF.
This is my entire argument with religion and the conservative movement in general. They literally want to force everyone to act and think like them, and they are alright with the government imposing those rules.
Southern Baptists, the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians, voted at an annual gathering on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization.
…the resolution calls on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.â€
The resolution also called on Southern Baptists to “advocate for the government to restrain†actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.â€
What to Know About the Southern Baptists’ Vote Opposing I.V.F. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
At what point do these churches who “advocate for the government to restrain” lose their tax exempt status? Asking as a father of a child conceived via IVF.
This is my entire argument with religion and the conservative movement in general. They literally want to force everyone to act and think like them, and they are alright with the government imposing those rules.
Well, that’s how our form of government works. Enough people agree on an issue and pass laws that force those who disagree to live by those rules.
The real question that I think Sphere is getting at is where does the line exist between a religious organization that is free to teach their congregation whatever moral and theological principles they want under the tax protection of the government, and a political lobbying organization that is more focused on influencing politicians than on preaching to their adherents. Not an easy question.
Southern Baptists, the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians, voted at an annual gathering on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization.
…the resolution calls on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.â€
The resolution also called on Southern Baptists to “advocate for the government to restrain†actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.â€
What to Know About the Southern Baptists’ Vote Opposing I.V.F. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
At what point do these churches who “advocate for the government to restrain” lose their tax exempt status? Asking as a father of a child conceived via IVF.
This is my entire argument with religion and the conservative movement in general. They literally want to force everyone to act and think like them, and they are alright with the
government imposing those rules.
Southern Baptists, the country’s largest denomination of Protestant Christians, voted at an annual gathering on Wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization.
…the resolution calls on Southern Baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the I.V.F. process.â€
The resolution also called on Southern Baptists to “advocate for the government to restrain†actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.â€
What to Know About the Southern Baptists’ Vote Opposing I.V.F. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
At what point do these churches who “advocate for the government to restrain” lose their tax exempt status? Asking as a father of a child conceived via IVF.
This is my entire argument with religion and the conservative movement in general. They literally want to force everyone to act and think like them, and they are alright with the government imposing those rules.
Well, that’s how our form of government works. Enough people agree on an issue and pass laws that force those who disagree to live by those rules.
The real question that I think Sphere is getting at is where does the line exist between a religious organization that is free to teach their congregation whatever moral and theological principles they want under the tax protection of the government, and a political lobbying organization that is more focused on influencing politicians than on preaching to their adherents. Not an easy question.
Yes pretty much that. I would think there are also progressive churches and other organizations that lobby gov’t from a more left sided perspective.
This is my entire argument with religion and the conservative movement in general. They literally want to force everyone to act and think like them, and they are alright with the government imposing those rules.
There’s also the blatant culture war that they engage in, only to cover it up with sanctimonious bullshit. No one made a peep about IVF until it became a political possibility. Then suddenly a religion which claims to be rooted in eternal truth comes out with a policy statement which just so happens to align with the current political discourse. Yeah, sure…
If they were really concerned about IVF, where was this policy statement in 1978, when IVF was invented?
The only thing this will accomplish is that SBC women will still have IVF, only in secret - much like abortion.
Well, that’s how our form of government works. Enough people agree on an issue and pass laws that force those who disagree to live by those rules.
The real question that I think Sphere is getting at is where does the line exist between a religious organization that is free to teach their congregation whatever moral and theological principles they want under the tax protection of the government, and a political lobbying organization that is more focused on influencing politicians than on preaching to their adherents. Not an easy question.
I disagree (some). Look at how we elect the president. Our form of government is set up to intentional amplify the minority (in some cases). Abortion is a perfect example if you trust the polls, yet conservative states not only continue to go against the desires of the their people, they continue to be able to fight those people’s right to force them to do what they want…
I’m old enough to remember when putting people with strong religious beliefs in positions of power was a major concern. I remember the concern JFK created simply because he was catholic. All that has changed and a supreme court justice discussing a religious fight that can not be compromised (my words, not his) is not viewed as a holy shit moment by a large group of the voting public.
As far as Sphere’s point, that has been decided several times. Churches are covered under the free speech clause.
Well, that’s how our form of government works. Enough people agree on an issue and pass laws that force those who disagree to live by those rules.
The real question that I think Sphere is getting at is where does the line exist between a religious organization that is free to teach their congregation whatever moral and theological principles they want under the tax protection of the government, and a political lobbying organization that is more focused on influencing politicians than on preaching to their adherents. Not an easy question.
I disagree (some). Look at how we elect the president. Our form of government is set up to intentional amplify the minority (in some cases). Abortion is a perfect example if you trust the polls, yet conservative states not only continue to go against the desires of the their people, they continue to be able to fight those people’s right to force them to do what they want…
I’m old enough to remember when putting people with strong religious beliefs in positions of power was a major concern. I remember the concern JFK created simply because he was catholic. All that has changed and a supreme court justice discussing a religious fight that can not be compromised (my words, not his) is not viewed as a holy shit moment by a large group of the voting public.
As far as Sphere’s point, that has been decided several times. Churches are covered under the free speech clause.
I think the issue with JFK / Catholics was concern about the Pope having outsized influence more so than religion generally.
That said, conservative States go against the desires of some of their people. Clearly, if enough of their people wanted that to change, they could make it happen.
What belief did a church impose on you, and that you accepted, against your will?
Just about any law that is morality based with no victim. Prostitution and Blue Laws come to mind, but there are others
Again, religious institutions are not unique in this regard. Plenty of people argue for laws based on their views of morality, which you might see as having no victim. Those aren’t all strictly based on religion or organized churches.
And this isn’t a free speech issue. I don’t think Sphere is talking about preventing churches from saying what they want. The issue is what boundaries do we have in place within which they enjoy tax exempt status and outside of which they are free to express themselves like anyone else but must also pay taxes like anyone else.
What belief did a church impose on you, and that you accepted, against your will?
Just about any law that is morality based with no victim. Prostitution and Blue Laws come to mind, but there are others
Aside from libertarians (and how many true libertarians are there) almost every law we have traces back to a Judeo Christian understanding of the world. A group wants to impose carbon targets on the general population it reflects a concern for people in the future we have not even met yet. Kind of like concern for the foreigner and stranger in your country. Or love of your neighbor. Slavery was everywhere in the Roman and Greek world the beginnings of concern for slaves co-incident with Christianity. Almost every criticism of Christianity uses a moral principle from Christianity. Quite often with some merit. Christians who don’t want to reduce their carbon footprint the appeal is “don’t you care about the planet” and therefore the poor and disadvantaged which are most the victims of climate change.
Both the left and the right emphasize freedom but they stress different aspects. The left freedom of the body the right economic freedom.
We live mainly in a guilt and forgiveness society vs the ancient world which was mainly a honor and shame society. Although there seems to be a trend more towards the honor and shame tendency these days.