Religious people at their MOST irritating!!

[ippy]

Another bunch of religious twerps, this time the C of E again, I've just read this in the Telegraph, the C of E is to lobby the government over the rising numbers of Downs syndrome abortions, mostly due to advances in a new safer method of testing for the condition that carries no risk of miscarriage. (Saturday 20/01/18 page 5).

I have no quarrel with those that wish to take on children with this condition it's, in my own opinion, for each individual couple or parent to decide.

Having said all of that, (sorry about the following words but that organisation makes me swear a lot more often than I'd like), if the C of E doesn't like the abortion of downs syndrome children or not is up to them, it's not their place to make the decision for any one else, if they the C of E or their followers don't agree with abortion in these cases, no one want's to make them abort Downs children against their will and there's no good reason why they should be making up the rules for anyone else any couple or single parent, they, the C of E need to fuck off and mind their own senseless business in these cases.

This is another example of why it's really necessary to have in place an active secular agenda, keeping those, ever decreasing, remaining believers in superstition in check. 

ippy

[splashscuba]

Another bunch of religious twerps, this time the C of E again, I've just read this in the Telegraph, the C of E is to lobby the government over the rising numbers of Downs syndrome abortions, mostly due to advances in a new safer method of testing for the condition that carries no risk of miscarriage. (Saturday 20/01/18 page 5).

I have no quarrel with those that wish to take on children with this condition it's, in my own opinion, for each individual couple or parent to decide.

Having said all of that, (sorry about the following words but that organisation makes me swear a lot more often than I'd like), if the C of E doesn't like the abortion of downs syndrome children or not is up to them, it's not their place to make the decision for any one else, if they the C of E or their followers don't agree with abortion in these cases, no one want's to make them abort Downs children against their will and there's no good reason why they should be making up the rules for anyone else any couple or single parent, they, the C of E need to fuck off and mind their own senseless business in these cases.

This is another example of why it's really necessary to have in place an active secular agenda, keeping those, ever decreasing, remaining believers in superstition in check. 

ippy

Remove them from the House of Lords and they just become a SIG who can lobby like every other one.

[SusanDoris]

I don't think I'll read the article, but I am certain my feelings would be similar to yours, Ippy.

[Rhiannon]

It's not just religious people who come with an agenda on this. When I refused testing during my pregnancy I was told by an obstetrician that the responsible thing to do was to test and abort.

[ippy]

It's not just religious people who come with an agenda on this. When I refused testing during my pregnancy I was told by an obstetrician that the responsible thing to do was to test and abort.

I've no problem either way, the sensible way or the religious believers approach, it needs to be up to the individual, it's not for me to direct others, or visa versa.

I happen to agree with your decision but it's not for me to judge others or prevent them from making their individual choice, nor should anyone be prevented from choosing either way.

Regards Rhi, ippy

[Rhiannon]

I've no problem either way, the sensible way or the religious believers approach, it needs to be up to the individual, it's not for me to direct others, or visa versa.

I happen to agree with your decision but it's not for me to judge others or prevent them from making their individual choice, nor should anyone be prevented from choosing either way.

Regards Rhi, ippy

Agree pretty much, Ippy. I didn’t refuse testing on religious grounds. The blood test at the time was unreliable; the only definitive test, the amiocentesis, has a one in a hundred chance of inducing miscarriage, meaning that there was a risk of losing a healthy and wanted baby. The possibility of having a Downs child was a better option for me at the time.

As I understand it the new test is non invasive and pretty reliable. Had it been available then I’d have had it and then made a choice. But nobody should be made to feel shamed for consciously choosing to have a child with a disability any more than they should for choosing not to.

[ippy]

Agree pretty much, Ippy. I didn’t refuse testing on religious grounds. The blood test at the time was unreliable; the only definitive test, the amiocentesis, has a one in a hundred chance of inducing miscarriage, meaning that there was a risk of losing a healthy and wanted baby. The possibility of having a Downs child was a better option for me at the time.

As I understand it the new test is non invasive and pretty reliable. Had it been available then I’d have had it and then made a choice. But nobody should be made to feel shamed for consciously choosing to have a child with a disability any more than they should for choosing not to.

Absolutly!

Regards ippy.

[floo]

Although I have an adopted son with DS, I would have been shocked if I had discovered I was actually pregnant with a child with the condition. Whether I would have considered an abortion, I really don't know. However, when one of my daughters was pregnant with her youngest child, she was told there was a high chance the baby would have DS. She would definitely have aborted the pregnancy if the tests had come back positive, fortunately they didn't. As much as she loves her brother, she and her husband felt there was no way they could cope with a disabled child, especially as she is a working mother, which I wasn't.

[Robbie]

The Anglicans who are lobbying the government about abortion of Down Syndrome children belong to a small orthodox group. They have no power, nothing will be changed because of what they say - but surely they are entitled to say it even if we don't agree.

The impression I get from reading about this is that they feel Down Syndrome children are singled out for extermination. In this day and age they are not shut away in homes like they were, they can live fulfilling lives.

I am not personally affected, but can't see the harm of this group lobbying, what they say does make one think. That is never a bad thing.

It's quite possible that people of no religion may feel the same.

http://anglicanmainstream.org/church-of-england-set-to-lobby-government-over-rising-downs-syndrome-abortions/

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Another bunch of religious twerps, this time the C of E again, I've just read this in the Telegraph, the C of E is to lobby the government over the rising numbers of Downs syndrome abortions, mostly due to advances in a new safer method of testing for the condition that carries no risk of miscarriage. (Saturday 20/01/18 page 5).

I have no quarrel with those that wish to take on children with this condition it's, in my own opinion, for each individual couple or parent to decide.

Having said all of that, (sorry about the following words but that organisation makes me swear a lot more often than I'd like), if the C of E doesn't like the abortion of downs syndrome children or not is up to them, it's not their place to make the decision for any one else, if they the C of E or their followers don't agree with abortion in these cases, no one want's to make them abort Downs children against their will and there's no good reason why they should be making up the rules for anyone else any couple or single parent, they, the C of E need to fuck off and mind their own senseless business in these cases.

This is another example of why it's really necessary to have in place an active secular agenda, keeping those, ever decreasing, remaining believers in superstition in check. 

ippy

It is not a matter of a secular agenda, it is a matter of people being able to lobby on behalf of a cause which they consider to be right.

[ippy]

It is not a matter of a secular agenda, it is a matter of people being able to lobby on behalf of a cause which they consider to be right.

It's a matter of yet another religious group trying to inflict their view of how they think things should be on others, why do they think they have some sort of right to impose their primitive superstitious nonsensical view of the world on others?

We, the U K public and any other kind of public grouping, should be telling these kinds of very backward thinking movements very clearly where they need to go and this is exactly where the secular view becomes more and more important where it can prevent us having to accept a disproportionate amount of the religious views imposed on those that choose to live in the real world.

The religious are able to vote for their member of parliament, in just the same way as the rest of us can, I wouldn't want anything differing from that, and as far as I am concerned that should be the start a finishing line of any influence religious believers should have over policies such as abortion or anything else.   

Regards ippy

[ekim]

It's surprising that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union when attempts were made to eradicate the 'opiate of the masses', there is now a massive resurgence of Orthodox Christians within the Russian Federation, so much so that the state is financing the rebuilding of churches I believe.

[ippy]

It's surprising that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union when attempts were made to eradicate the 'opiate of the masses', there is now a massive resurgence of Orthodox Christians within the Russian Federation, so much so that the state is financing the rebuilding of churches I believe.

Yes you're right ekim, I find it surprising too.

Regards ippy

[Rhiannon]

The Anglicans who are lobbying the government about abortion of Down Syndrome children belong to a small orthodox group. They have no power, nothing will be changed because of what they say - but surely they are entitled to say it even if we don't agree.

The impression I get from reading about this is that they feel Down Syndrome children are singled out for extermination. In this day and age they are not shut away in homes like they were, they can live fulfilling lives.

I am not personally affected, but can't see the harm of this group lobbying, what they say does make one think. That is never a bad thing.

It's quite possible that people of no religion may feel the same.

http://anglicanmainstream.org/church-of-england-set-to-lobby-government-over-rising-downs-syndrome-abortions/

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as 'orthodoxy' in Anglicanism.

Anglican Mainstream are just the opposite if what their name suggests - ultra conservative, ultra bigoted. They've never fitted with the generally tolerant mainstream Anglicanism.

[Rhiannon]

It's surprising that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union when attempts were made to eradicate the 'opiate of the masses', there is now a massive resurgence of Orthodox Christians within the Russian Federation, so much so that the state is financing the rebuilding of churches I believe.

I think that Orthodoxy is now associated with post-USSR nationalism and a belief in the 'glories' of Mother Russia.

[Harrowby Hall]

It's surprising that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union when attempts were made to eradicate the 'opiate of the masses', .

We've been through this before. Religion as "the opiate of the masses" was not intended  - by Marx - to be a condemnation of religion. He made that statement at a time when opium was regarded more like a wonder drug than a social curse. Opium brought pain relief and comfort to people who were injured, or ill and in pain.

Marx's observation was that religion performed a similar function for people suffering in other ways.

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, surely it was as much a theocracy as Iran. It's religion was Marxism.

[floo]

Putin and the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church seem to be licking each other's bottoms these days!

[Robbie]

It's a matter of yet another religious group trying to inflict their view of how they think things should be on others, why do they think they have some sort of right to impose their primitive superstitious nonsensical view of the world on others?

We, the U K public and any other kind of public grouping, should be telling these kinds of very backward thinking movements very clearly where they need to go and this is exactly where the secular view becomes more and more important where it can prevent us having to accept a disproportionate amount of the religious views imposed on those that choose to live in the real world.

The religious are able to vote for their member of parliament, in just the same way as the rest of us can, I wouldn't want anything differing from that, and as far as I am concerned that should be the start a finishing line of any influence religious believers should have over policies such as abortion or anything else.   

Regards ippy

Do you feel this particular group of Anglicans are imposing their views on you?  I have read the articles and don't feel imposed upon.  They are expressing what they believe, as do you.  It's a free country and, within limits, we are all free to do the same.  They're not going to change anything by saying what they said, nor doing any harm.  You are  outraged just because you don't agree with them.  I don't agree with them but understand where they are coming from; I'm generally not outraged by opinions different to my own.

I take the point that there may be no such thing as orthodoxy in Anglicanism, it's a broad church; I used the word "Orthodox" previously because that's how they describe themselves.

[Rhiannon]

I think it’s legitimate for Anglicans to feel that Anglican Mainstream are imposing their beliefs on them.

[Robbie]

I doubt it Rhiannon - but I will ask. More likely they will take no notice or, as I did, read and let it go to the back of their minds. Anglicans and other religious denoms are used to different groups giving opinions and to finding leaflets at back of the church. Some are interesting and others not. However I will ask about this particular thing, if it has made any impression or if anyone is bothered by it.

[Rhiannon]

I doubt it Rhiannon - but I will ask. More likely they will take no notice or, as I did, read and let it go to the back of their minds. Anglicans and other religious denoms are used to different groups giving opinions and to finding leaflets at back of the church. Some are interesting and others not. However I will ask about this particular thing, if it has made any impression or if anyone is bothered by it.

I used to be an Anglican and it’s how I felt. They had a huge influence over the CofE becoming less tolerant of gay clergy and gay relationships. The Church went from being somewhere that everyone could find a place to somewhere hostile to gay people and it’s why I left long before I lost my faith.

[Rhiannon]

This is worth a look. Not hard to find stuff on the web about AM.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kevin-childs/anglican-mainstreams-gay-_b_2010457.html

[Robbie]

Thanks Rhi, I'll look when I get home from work.

[ekim]

We've been through this before. Religion as "the opiate of the masses" was not intended  - by Marx - to be a condemnation of religion. He made that statement at a time when opium was regarded more like a wonder drug than a social curse. Opium brought pain relief and comfort to people who were injured, or ill and in pain.

Marx's observation was that religion performed a similar function for people suffering in other ways.

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, surely it was as much a theocracy as Iran. It's religion was Marxism.

The point of my comment was not about the meaning of opiate but more about what is implied in your last sentence.  During the Soviet era attempts were made to replace the 'wonder drug' of religion by the 'wonder drug' of Marxism, which is not a theocracy as there is no God involved, but you could say that there was indoctrination.  It appears that within the Russian Federation there is a massive resurgence of 'God' involvement which I find surprising given the length of time the more atheistic Marxist addiction held sway.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

It's a matter of yet another religious group trying to inflict their view of how they think things should be on others, why do they think they have some sort of right to impose their primitive superstitious nonsensical view of the world on others?

We, the U K public and any other kind of public grouping, should be telling these kinds of very backward thinking movements very clearly where they need to go and this is exactly where the secular view becomes more and more important where it can prevent us having to accept a disproportionate amount of the religious views imposed on those that choose to live in the real world.

The religious are able to vote for their member of parliament, in just the same way as the rest of us can, I wouldn't want anything differing from that, and as far as I am concerned that should be the start a finishing line of any influence religious believers should have over policies such as abortion or anything else.   

Regards ippy

TBH if your OP was a motion to a conference I would suspect that it would be ruled out of order on the grounds that it is unclear in its intent. Just because you do not like religion does not mean that religious people should be told "where to go". Regarding "backward thinking", I am not satisfied that Anglican bishops are more stupid than are BNP thugs ranting about "Indigenous People". As for the C of E being in the H o L that is an entirely separate matter.