Why Hard-Line Religionism Is Toxic

There are so many people who insist that we "should not disrespect religion," the underlying message being that we shouldn't say anything in opposition or criticism of their intolerant religious doctrines. Well, sorry, but in this country (the U.S.), we have the right to criticize religion any time we want, and as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing of real value most religions have to offer. In fact, I find most of them to be highly toxic to the mind, body and spirit of mankind.

Look at the doctrines of hard-line religionists on matters of sex and reproduction, for starters. Some churches forbid any kind of birth control at all, and some even forbid the contraceptive sex acts of masturbation, digital penetration and others that completely avoid the unwanted burdens of pregnancy.

Why forbid those at all, since when you (generally speaking) prevent pregnancy, you are preventing abortion, which is the goal of the pro-life movement? What sense does it make to forbid any form of contraception, whether purchased or natural? It makes no sense at all, if they really wanted to prevent abortions, as they so often claim to do.

But I've come to the conclusion that most of these hard-line religions and churches aren't really that concerned with preventing abortion as much as they are at preventing contraception. Remember, that without future members to keep giving money to the church, whatever that may be, eventually it will be struggling to survive, and may well go under.

This would be nothing short of a natural catastrophe for religionists. No more people to control, no more members to manipulate, as religions like catholicism and conservative christianity (to name just two I can think of immediately) have been doing for centuries. The priests will have nothing to do, and for the first time ever, will have to find real jobs, which they may be totally unqualified for. Which scares the beejeepers out of them!

So whenever I hear or read religionist rants against contraception and how "selfish" it is, and implying their members are selfish for not having children, or only having one or two, they're not fooling me. They are looking out for themselves, not their members. They can -- and no doubt will -- deny this all they want, but if you look closely, their real agenda is very easy to spot.

Of course, this is only one of the many reasons why I find hard-line religionism toxic. But I haven't had time this morning to make up a complete list, so anyone who wants to help me out with this one is welcome to add to it.

:D

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Ocean56 wrote:

There are so many people who insist that we "should not disrespect religion," the underlying message being that we shouldn't say anything in opposition or criticism of their intolerant religious doctrines. Well, sorry, but in this country (the U.S.), we have the right to criticize religion any time we want, and as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing of real value most religions have to offer. In fact, I find most of them to be highly toxic to the mind, body and spirit of mankind.
Look at the doctrines of hard-line religionists on matters of sex and reproduction, for starters. Some churches forbid any kind of birth control at all, and some even forbid the contraceptive sex acts of masturbation, digital penetration and others that completely avoid the unwanted burdens of pregnancy.
Why forbid those at all, since when you (generally speaking) prevent pregnancy, you are preventing abortion, which is the goal of the pro-life movement? What sense does it make to forbid any form of contraception, whether purchased or natural? It makes no sense at all, if they really wanted to prevent abortions, as they so often claim to do.
But I've come to the conclusion that most of these hard-line religions and churches aren't really that concerned with preventing abortion as much as they are at preventing contraception. Remember, that without future members to keep giving money to the church, whatever that may be, eventually it will be struggling to survive, and may well go under.
This would be nothing short of a natural catastrophe for religionists. No more people to control, no more members to manipulate, as religions like catholicism and conservative christianity (to name just two I can think of immediately) have been doing for centuries. The priests will have nothing to do, and for the first time ever, will have to find real jobs, which they may be totally unqualified for. Which scares the beejeepers out of them!
So whenever I hear or read religionist rants against contraception and how "selfish" it is, and implying their members are selfish for not having children, or only having one or two, they're not fooling me. They are looking out for themselves, not their members. They can -- and no doubt will -- deny this all they want, but if you look closely, their real agenda is very easy to spot.
Of course, this is only one of the many reasons why I find hard-line religionism toxic. But I haven't had time this morning to make up a complete list, so anyone who wants to help me out with this one is welcome to add to it.
:D
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

I agree with your post, and also find it odd that people in this day and age still find it necessary to believe in this basically adult version of a fairy tale.

I laugh when someone says I'll "burn in hell", "be sorry in the end", will "get what's coming to me" as these are all totally empty threats made in brainwashed ignorance.

On other threads, when questioned, the folks claiming to be Christians get angry, which is of course a dead giveaway that their beliefs are really extremely shaky and being questioned about something they claim to understand but do not is actually threatening to them.

I'm so glad to be a secular humanist with a spiritual side rather than sucked into a rigid, dogmatic and intolerant make believe world.

I think it’s very funny how you focus on SEX as the argument for how bad “Hard-Line Religionism” is. My guess is it’s because you would like to practice SEX in any way you please. Am I wrong? Doubtful.

First you make a claim that there are religious establishments that will not allow birth control for any reason. Which religions are these? Can you name them?

Based on your general statements I would say that you come across as ignorant. I used to belong to the Catholic Church (the largest Christian church) and I was counseled on the use of contraceptives for a committed marriage. I now belong to a Baptist Church and most of my friends and I who have finished having children have all had vasectomies. This was done after seeking Godly counsel. So your idea about this subject is not well researched and has a conclusion that is derived from an opinion and NOT fact. Thus, you are ignoring the positives that the Church as a whole provides to the public.

Second, I am sure it would be great to have sex with anyone, at any time you would like without consequences. The thing is the Church is much more clear on what those consequences are that any secular institution, and most (like yourself) scoff at that, and later contract some kind of STD.

The truth about sex is it is a gift from God to share with one person throughout your lifetime. My wife and I have NO STDs, 3 beautiful children, and our sex life has only gotten better as we have aged.

You truly do not know about that of which you are attempting to speak.

FundieSmacker
You know there is no God, and those of us who do believe, believe in a fairy tail? How do you know this? What do you base your knowledge of the subject on? Where do you get your knowledge of God?

I find it interesting that you chose to call believers ignorant when you may not have even read one book in the Bible. If you have read a book in the Bible, then do you know who wrote the book? Do you know why the author wrote it? Do you know to whom they wrote to book to or about? Do you know the time it was written and what was happening to Human society at that time? My guess is that you would not have the answers to those questions. So who is the true ignoramus when it comes to believing in God?

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

I think it’s very funny how you focus on SEX as the argument for how bad “Hard-Line Religionism” is. My guess is it’s because you would like to practice SEX in any way you please. Am I wrong? Doubtful.
First you make a claim that there are religious establishments that will not allow birth control for any reason. Which religions are these? Can you name them?
Based on your general statements I would say that you come across as ignorant. I used to belong to the Catholic Church (the largest Christian church) and I was counseled on the use of contraceptives for a committed marriage. I now belong to a Baptist Church and most of my friends and I who have finished having children have all had vasectomies. This was done after seeking Godly counsel. So your idea about this subject is not well researched and has a conclusion that is derived from an opinion and NOT fact. Thus, you are ignoring the positives that the Church as a whole provides to the public.
Second, I am sure it would be great to have sex with anyone, at any time you would like without consequences. The thing is the Church is much more clear on what those consequences are that any secular institution, and most (like yourself) scoff at that, and later contract some kind of STD.
The truth about sex is it is a gift from God to share with one person throughout your lifetime. My wife and I have NO STDs, 3 beautiful children, and our sex life has only gotten better as we have aged.
You truly do not know about that of which you are attempting to speak.

1. I DO "practice sex" any way I please, always with birth control in place to avoid the burdens of unwanted pregnancy, and do my best to make sure I don't get any unwanted STDs either. So far, so good, I haven't experienced either, and don't expect to. Is that a problem for you?@@

2. The doctrines of catholicism, lds and other conservative christian churches put their anti-contraception position in vague terms such as "all sex acts must be open to life," which in plain English means "any sex should lead to children sooner or later," and for most of them, the sooner conception is achieved, the better. The only "contraceptive" method the rcc approves is that idiotic NFP (natural family planning), which creates more unwanted pregnancies than it is supposed to prevent. Yet this same church strongly opposes sex acts like masturbation, digital penetration and oral sex if the intention is to AVOID pregnancy, calling it a "sin" because these acts are about pleasure, not procreation. How am I doing so far? By the way, having to get "godly counsel" is another burdensome rule that secularists don't have to follow, as we're capable of deciding for OURSELVES how many children we want to have, even if that number is zero.

3. So you have had no STD's, good for you. Neither have I. And I didn't want three children, I only wanted ONE, and thanks to the freedom to decide for MYSELF how many to have, I have my one terrific kiddo by choice. And yes, it truly IS wonderful to have sex any way I want, with no interfering priests or pastors telling me I'm committing a "sin" for doing so. I take care of my own health needs, thanks to regular consultations with a qualified physician.

Last, but not least, I DO know about what I speak, your insistence that I "don't know" notwithstanding. Anyone who was lucky enough to escape from that monument to cruelty and oppression, aka the catholic church, knows what they have escaped FROM. As far as I'M concerned, the pleasures of secularist freedom are infinitely preferable over the miseries of religionist slavery, whether it's coming from the catholic church or any other church that is "conservative christian."

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Alwaysasceptic wrote:
The truth about sex is it is a gift from God to share with one person throughout your lifetime.

**********

No, that is merely your BELIEF about sex, which is not a fact and which many of us don't share. Not all of us choose to remain celibate until marriage, and not everyone chooses to marry. You're free to believe whatever you want, but to me, sex is NOT, as religionists would have us believe, a privilege for the married only. Nor is procreation always the intended goal.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

FundieSmacker
You know there is no God, and those of us who do believe, believe in a fairy tail? How do you know this? What do you base your knowledge of the subject on? Where do you get your knowledge of God?
I find it interesting that you chose to call believers ignorant when you may not have even read one book in the Bible. If you have read a book in the Bible, then do you know who wrote the book? Do you know why the author wrote it? Do you know to whom they wrote to book to or about? Do you know the time it was written and what was happening to Human society at that time? My guess is that you would not have the answers to those questions. So who is the true ignoramus when it comes to believing in God?

Apparently you're the type of person I posted about. Thanks for showing how threatened you feel about ideas that don't conform to yours. You could hardly have provided a better example for me. Thanks!

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

FundieSmacker
You know there is no God, and those of us who do believe, believe in a fairy tail? How do you know this? What do you base your knowledge of the subject on? Where do you get your knowledge of God?
I find it interesting that you chose to call believers ignorant when you may not have even read one book in the Bible. If you have read a book in the Bible, then do you know who wrote the book? Do you know why the author wrote it? Do you know to whom they wrote to book to or about? Do you know the time it was written and what was happening to Human society at that time? My guess is that you would not have the answers to those questions. So who is the true ignoramus when it comes to believing in God?

I'm happy for you and your family, and may you continue to be happy.

I DO know of whom I speak when it comes to believers in organized and fundamentalist religions. If you don't like what I have to say, you do have the freedom to voice your feelings just as you have the freedom to skip over what I have to say.

Either way is fine with me. I can communicate with anyone willing to listen.

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

I think it’s very funny how you focus on SEX as the argument for how bad “Hard-Line Religionism” is. My guess is it’s because you would like to practice SEX in any way you please. Am I wrong? Doubtful.
First you make a claim that there are religious establishments that will not allow birth control for any reason. Which religions are these? Can you name them?
Based on your general statements I would say that you come across as ignorant. I used to belong to the Catholic Church (the largest Christian church) and I was counseled on the use of contraceptives for a committed marriage. I now belong to a Baptist Church and most of my friends and I who have finished having children have all had vasectomies. This was done after seeking Godly counsel. So your idea about this subject is not well researched and has a conclusion that is derived from an opinion and NOT fact. Thus, you are ignoring the positives that the Church as a whole provides to the public.
Second, I am sure it would be great to have sex with anyone, at any time you would like without consequences. The thing is the Church is much more clear on what those consequences are that any secular institution, and most (like yourself) scoff at that, and later contract some kind of STD.
The truth about sex is it is a gift from God to share with one person throughout your lifetime. My wife and I have NO STDs, 3 beautiful children, and our sex life has only gotten better as we have aged.
You truly do not know about that of which you are attempting to speak.

Your response to Ocean's post is hilarious. You're the one who does not know the subject at hand well enough to discuss it, and you have no clue what Ocean has or has not done or seen in life or how much she knows about which religion. Speaking from ignorance seems to be your way of arguing with others. No wonder you aren't getting anywhere here.

alwaysasceptic wrote:
So your idea about this subject is not well researched and has a conclusion that is derived from an opinion and NOT fact. Thus, you are ignoring the positives that the Church as a whole provides to the public.
**********

Sorry, I don't see burdens like unwanted tithing, stupid rituals and rules that make no sense at all, and never being allowed to think for myself as "positives." If YOU want to carry those heavy burdens for life, be my guest. I dropped all of them over 25 years ago, and have no desire or intention of picking them up again.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

FundieSmacker wrote:

<quoted text>
Your response to Ocean's post is hilarious. You're the one who does not know the subject at hand well enough to discuss it, and you have no clue what Ocean has or has not done or seen in life or how much she knows about which religion. Speaking from ignorance seems to be your way of arguing with others. No wonder you aren't getting anywhere here.

Hilarious, but hardly surprising, right, FS? lol

I've seen so many of these responses from people who see atheism/secularism as a serious threat to their whole existence, when it really isn't. Unless one is a church "leader" dependent on a church building to keep his job. Then I can see why atheism would be a threat.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Ocean56 wrote:

alwaysasceptic wrote:
So your idea about this subject is not well researched and has a conclusion that is derived from an opinion and NOT fact. Thus, you are ignoring the positives that the Church as a whole provides to the public.
**********
Sorry, I don't see burdens like unwanted tithing, stupid rituals and rules that make no sense at all, and never being allowed to think for myself as "positives." If YOU want to carry those heavy burdens for life, be my guest. I dropped all of them over 25 years ago, and have no desire or intention of picking them up again.
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

And this being the Internet you have every right to say so as often as you please. Kind of sucks to be a control freak trying to keep information away from people these days, doesn't it Ocean? ;>)

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hilarious, but hardly surprising, right, FS? lol
I've seen so many of these responses from people who see atheism/secularism as a serious threat to their whole existence, when it really isn't. Unless one is a church "leader" dependent on a church building to keep his job. Then I can see why atheism would be a threat.
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Well said Ocean!

FundieSmacker wrote:

<quoted text>
Your response to Ocean's post is hilarious. You're the one who does not know the subject at hand well enough to discuss it, and you have no clue what Ocean has or has not done or seen in life or how much she knows about which religion. Speaking from ignorance seems to be your way of arguing with others. No wonder you aren't getting anywhere here.

How is it you came to that conclussion? I find you reaction humorous.

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hilarious, but hardly surprising, right, FS? lol
I've seen so many of these responses from people who see atheism/secularism as a serious threat to their whole existence, when it really isn't. Unless one is a church "leader" dependent on a church building to keep his job. Then I can see why atheism would be a threat.
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

It is far from any threat. God is greater than any secularist, like it or not. What I find amusing is how you justify where your stand. Secularists always say it's the religous right is trying to abolish sexual things, when that is a flat out lie. Sex is a gift from God... read "Song of Solomon". God provides every answer to life and to deny that is being ignorant... Neighter of you can even name a book in the Bible can you? if you can have you can have you read it? do you know the context of which it was writen. NO? Right ignoranceoe. You can make these statment about God without undstanding His word and you havn't even tried.

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it you came to that conclussion? I find you reaction humorous.

By reading what you wrote. Find my post however you wish. It's a free country.

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

<quoted text>
It is far from any threat. God is greater than any secularist, like it or not. What I find amusing is how you justify where your stand. Secularists always say it's the religous right is trying to abolish sexual things, when that is a flat out lie. Sex is a gift from God... read "Song of Solomon". God provides every answer to life and to deny that is being ignorant... Neighter of you can even name a book in the Bible can you? if you can have you can have you read it? do you know the context of which it was writen. NO? Right ignoranceoe. You can make these statment about God without undstanding His word and you havn't even tried.

Religion by itself is not something I object to. I object to the way some of its followers practice those religions.

Sex is instinctive among any creature on this earth you can name.

Oh and as for the names, there are as you know so many versions of the "unalterable" bible, but here since this is so important for you:

The Old Testament:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books
Tobit
Judith
Additions to the Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
2 Esdras
4 Maccabees

The New Testament
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts of the Apostles
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Also, you speak from ignorance regarding what I know or do not know, how I was brought up, what I was taught and by whom, so you cannot possibly know anything about me at all, thereby making any ASSumptions on your part false. To disagree with your interpretation of a book based on a belief of a deity nobody has ever seen is rational and logical. Too bad you're too blind to see that.

FundieSmacker wrote:

<quoted text>
And this being the Internet you have every right to say so as often as you please. Kind of sucks to be a control freak trying to keep information away from people these days, doesn't it Ocean? ;>)

FS, it sure does...for them. I'm sure if they (the religionist leaders of all hard-line churches) had their way, they'd go back to the old days. You know, the ones where anyone who so much as questioned the doctrines of the church, let alone dissented from them, could be tortured then murdered for being a "heretic." Or if you were in Salem, MA in 1692-93, executed by hanging for being a "witch."

Unfortunately for them, this is the modern day and age, and in the U.S. we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which spells out the rights for all citizens. The very first words of the First Amendment give us freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion, meaning that one is just as free NOT to believe as another citizen is free to believe. I still can't believe how many christian religionists get that wrong.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Alwaysasceptic wrote:

<quoted text>
It is far from any threat. God is greater than any secularist, like it or not. What I find amusing is how you justify where your stand. Secularists always say it's the religous right is trying to abolish sexual things, when that is a flat out lie. Sex is a gift from God... read "Song of Solomon". God provides every answer to life and to deny that is being ignorant... Neighter of you can even name a book in the Bible can you? if you can have you can have you read it? do you know the context of which it was writen. NO? Right ignoranceoe. You can make these statment about God without undstanding His word and you havn't even tried.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want about your god and about how great it is. As far as I'M concerned, your god is imaginary, and your bible nothing more than a collective work of fiction. I read it once, which was a very long time ago, and have no intention of reading it again. I'd rather read the stories of Sherlock Holmes, which are also fiction, but far more well-written and much more entertaining.

As far as your insistence that "sex is a gift from god," sorry but that is also a BELIEF, which I and many other secularists don't share. And your insistence that others should accept your beliefs as facts are one of the many reasons why hard-line religionism, be it catholicism, conservative christianity or any other militant faith, is highly toxic, to me anyway.

S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
FS, it sure does...for them. I'm sure if they (the religionist leaders of all hard-line churches) had their way, they'd go back to the old days. You know, the ones where anyone who so much as questioned the doctrines of the church, let alone dissented from them, could be tortured then murdered for being a "heretic." Or if you were in Salem, MA in 1692-93, executed by hanging for being a "witch."
Unfortunately for them, this is the modern day and age, and in the U.S. we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which spells out the rights for all citizens. The very first words of the First Amendment give us freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion, meaning that one is just as free NOT to believe as another citizen is free to believe. I still can't believe how many christian religionists get that wrong.
S.I.N.= Self Inflicted NONSENSE

Me neither, and I think our thread's fundie control freak is taking a break. Must have been at least in part to his ASSumption I couldn't list the books of the bible. I suppose I could have listed the ones the RCC ripped out of it when it didn't fit their version of the fantasy. Some "unaltered" bible, eh, Ocean?