The Right to be You, P2

Following on from this post (which can also be found at the Coalition of the Brave), it would seem that the fundie has wailed some more at Jill’s original writings. Deceitful to the last, what does the fundie have to say?

His post is titled ‘How Christian of You’, and that leads us into his first paragraph.

That is one of the comments we got when another website quoted our post verbatim. It seems that to be a Christian in unbelievers’ eyes, we must rubber stamp everything they say. According to their responses to that article, we are certainly not allowed critique what they say and call out their error-filled thinking.

This is deeply ironic. There is nothing in any of the commentary that suggests the fundie is not allowed to have a voice. It is the fundie who would dearly love to silence opposition to his point of view.

His hatred and bigotry toward all who aren’t 100% in agreement with him

We are still trying to figure out how it is hatred and bigotry to oppose sinful thinking and arguments? She also called us narrow-minded and other insulting terms which only provided physical evidence that we were right.

We have no hatred or bigotry towards that author, we do not like what she said because it was not well thought out, distorted, or changed history as well as many other mistakes she made.

It is indeed hateful and bigoted to demand that everyone bend to the fundie’s limited perspective, given that he would gleefully strip others of their rights and freedoms, on the basis of his religion. When he has whined that Christians should have a voice in government, what he really means is that only Christians should have a voice in government, and he stomps his feet at how unfair it is that he cannot dictate how others live their lives. It is not an insult to call such a position narrow-minded – it is a statement of fact (and given the name-calling that the fundie has happily indulged in before, he would do well to remember John 8:7 – “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”).

The fundie once said to me that I should leave Christians alone – he should heed his own advice. If he is not going to repent, and instead insist upon calling anyone who isn’t his brand of fundie sinners, evil etc, then he is going to get called out for his desire to oppress anyone who does not think as he does.

Those two people were not the ones bringing ridiculous rebuttals to our article. MM said something very definitive that shot down the points of all those who agreed with the author of that piece we analyzed.

Everyone has the right to live their life how they choose.

Everyone? Really? Then MM and his supporters cannot create laws for their laws would interfere with someone’s right to live as they please. Without laws, then all we have is anarchy or the law of the jungle.

The rebuttal arguments from unbelievers are ridiculous as they are short-sighted, not thought through, and have no basis in any legal jurisdiction anywhere at any time in history. As an example, the author and those that agree with her wanted secular, not Christian ones.

There are two problems with this concept. #1. if they make a law that criminalized murder, rape, theft, greed, and similar crimes, guess what? All those laws are Biblical or Christian laws.

Wow. Just wow. The fundie made a similar argument in a comment, and my jaw fell to the floor. He is being utterly obtuse and dishonest here. No one, in any way shape or form, was suggesting that granting freedoms and rights extended to murder and other crimes. The entire point of Jill’s post (and a point I suspect the fundie has deliberately ignored) was to point out that no one should be forced to live under a theocracy. Such governments are not kind to the LGBT community, women, or followers of other religions. Indeed, theocracies are not usually kind to followers of the same religion! You need only look at the widespread persecution and counter-persecution of Protestants and Catholics in Europe, during the Middle Ages.

In fact, this brings me to a pertinent point. One of the reasons people fled Europe for the New World was to escape religious persecution. The fundie raised the idea that Christians were fleeing persecution, and they were – from other Christians! Since Christianity has been at its own throat for much of its history, how can the fundie assure non-Christians and non-believers of being treated fairly and reasonably, under a Christian theocracy?

So if they want secular laws, then murder, rape, etc., cannot be crimes. They do not want Christian laws. The second problem with their logic is that the unbelieving world has no objective standards to follow for anything.

Any law they make can be challenged by any other unbeliever. Just because they think differently than secular lawmakers. We all know that not all unbelievers agree with each other on what should or should not be a law.

So the big questions to them are, who will make those laws, why them, and why those laws? If everyone has the right to live life as they please, then everyone gets to make their own laws, and guess what happens next? The world would be a worse place than it is now.

We live in a country whose citizens ‘want to be free’ and do as they please. Sadly, they try to do that but someone always suffers from the actions of those people. It is not a utopian society but one where life is cheap.

One traffic cop impounded an illegal van in a city we moved from. The next day he was killed and no one arrested the killer. Secular laws do not work. There are too many secular people with different ideas to make it work.

Hang on, if it’s Christian laws that make murder illegal, and no one arrested the killer of the cop, doesn’t that mean that Christian laws failed? Furthermore, laws against crimes existed well before Christianity existed, or does the fundie think that such laws did not exist in Ancient Rome?

He is going out of his way to construct an epic strawman argument here, talking of criminal laws, and completely missing the points made by myself, Jill, and everyone else.

Talk about an epic fail.

Please point to where God talks about insulting, judging and putting other people down?

Another quote with false accusations. We did not put the author down, insult her, or even judged her. We analyzed what she said and pointed out her errors, just like we are doing here. Erroneous thinking has to be pointed out and rebutted.

If, according to MM, everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, then these people cannot get upset. That statement applies to Christians and us. We get to analyze, etc., that author’s article and these comments.

They cannot get upset about it because they have granted us that freedom with their points of view. If they do get upset, then they have violated their own mandates.

Bottom line is, the fundie frequently puts people down, and does not speak the truth (just look at how he treats Bruce), let alone the truth with love. Where are those behaviours commanded in the Bible?

Since he chooses to be obtuse, and dishonest, he cannot complain about called out on it – therefore, his demand that I leave Christianity alone is an unreasonable and hypocritical one. After all, erroneous thinking has to be pointed out and rebutted 😉

When she says women should have rights over their bodies to decide on Abortion,

This is a topic that the unbelievers just cannot see reality on. No amount of arguing, logical arguments, etc., can get it through the unbeliever’s head. Abortion is NOT about the woman’s body.

It is about the child’s body. This is the body that is harmed and if all abortion doctors have taken an oath to do no harm, then they have violated that oath millions of times. Abortion IS NOT a medical procedure. It is a willful act of killing someone who cannot defend themselves.

If the unbeliever says, everyone has the right to live as they please, why is that right not granted to the unborn? If they make a law that says murder is illegal and a crime, then why are abortionists not sent to jail?

If you want a fair and just society, the laws have to cover everyone, not make exceptions for those wrong acts one favors and wants to do. Do unto others applies to the unborn as well as the humans that have been born already.

To be fair and just, abortion has to be as illegal as murder is. The writer of that quote seems to ignore certain recent laws that have been enacted forcing the church and its members to participate in different activities or pay the price for not joining in and obeying those wrong laws.

Christians are forced to do many things because unbelievers have enacted secular laws which are unjust and unfair.

Firstly, abortion is sometimes a vital medical procedure for saving a woman’s life. The fundie may be completely ignorant of medical reality, so to educate him, here is some information:

“Yes, there are absolutely certain medical conditions that warrant us to very urgently encourage a woman to have an abortion,” said Stacey Beck, MD and Assistant Professor at the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Maternal Fetal Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Physicians

“One of the most common reasons I help women to terminate their pregnancy is because their water is broke [early in pregnancy] and they have an infection,” Beck said.

If there’s a clear sign of infection, the condition can be life threatening, “because there is an extremely high risk that the infection inside of the uterus spreads very quickly into her bloodstream and she becomes septic. If she continues the pregnancy it comes at a very high risk of death.”

“Typically, if a woman breaks her water before 20 weeks into her pregnancy, it is usually strongly recommended by medical professionals that she considers an abortion,” Beck said.

A placental abruption, which is when the placenta starts to separate from the uterus, is another condition that could fatally impact a pregnant women’s life. It is “uncommon yet a serious condition,” the Cleveland Clinic states ( here ).

In a “small percentage of abruptions,” Beck said, if a woman is bleeding so heavily that she can go into hemorrhagic shock, “then we would also recommend a very urgent termination of pregnancy or abortion as a life saving measure for the mom, in order to prevent her bleeding to death.”

Another condition in which staying pregnant comes at a very high risk of death for the mother is preeclampsia early in pregnancy (less than 24 weeks), Beck said.

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy complication that involves developing high blood pressure and signs of organ damage ( here , here ).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reports ( here ) that the rate of preeclampsia in the United States increased by 25% between 1987 and 2004.

The earlier it develops, the more severe it will be, according to the UK National Health System ( here ).

These are clear, obvious, medical reasons for requiring an abortion, and if the fundie respected rights, freedoms, and indeed life, as much as he claims, he would at the very least make sure these life-saving procedures remained available. However, I suspect he will fail to address this point.

As the fundie says, to have a fair society, the laws and rules have to apply to everyone. Would this be the case in a theocracy? Hardly. I’d also like to know what Christians are forced to do because of secular laws.

If you don’t like her opinions, do us all a favour and avoid them so your drivel is kept to a minimum for those of us who do.

This is standard fare from unbelievers who forget it is a two-way street. If they do not like what we right, feel free not to read it. We can do without your ridiculous arguments and sinful thinking.

Under secular law, innocent people get hurt. How is that better than Christian law where both Christian and secular innocent people are protected from harm? The author of that piece and her supporters do not think things through.

Their arguments are standard hatred and bigotry towards Christians, Christianity, God, and Jesus. They are rejecting the right way to live for something that is far worse than they can imagine.

Fundie, practice what you preach. No one makes you read my sites. No one forces you to read Jill’s posts, or Bruce’s articles. Where you issue your misleading counter-‘points’, don’t act surprised when they get dealt with. Enough pretending to be persecuted, whilst advocating for persecuting anyone who is not a Christian.

In case anyone is interested, I’ve set up a forum post, in a bid to get that going, and to use the forums more in general.

Please follow and like us: