Gramps
Mayor
Sometimes it benefits everyone when an outsider peers in and can get a clear picture of a situation that those involved with it cannot. I really don't care what religious sect anyone belongs to. It's their personal choice. Just as it should be anyone's choice to not belong to any sect. But, if you backup the clock far enough to try to analyze the theme of some sects it is quite obvious that they encouraged large families for no other purpose to the garner the numbers with which to control the norm. With that in mind try to consider if such a theory is practical today.
The world-wide population is such that it's running over and we could very easily be looking at, on a wide scale, what is going on in some sectors of Africa today; famine and destitution as a rule not a rarety. At what point do we begin to hold those who propose doing nothing to curtail birth accountable for, if nothing else, turning a blind eye in that direction because it violates procedure that was established centuries ago when the world was not over-populated?
My dad, who was raised in a sparsely populated area of Oklahoma years before it became a state, told me that when he was young their community managed to keep an even keel with so few laws, most of which were based on the commandments, the few exceptions beings the carrying of weapons on Main Street, and regulations regarding tying-up horses when leaving them unattended and (GOD FORBID) no spitting on the board walks that fronted the business. Then he wondered how many laws there are on the books today in comparison and we both agreed it was impossible to make a determination. But after we discussed the topic he admitted that the simplicity of his growing years was in no way comparable to that of today. The concensus: laws are what they are because society enccourages them by living loose lives in a day and age of cramped quarters compared to when dad was a kid.
And that brings me around to everything that has changed so radically over the past century that the blind-eye approach is no longer acceptable.
Churches are blessed with any number of hands-off benefits which no other entity is in this country. The founders gave religion a lot of latitude when they laid the ground rules which trying to not regulate religious beliefs and as a result we see gigantic cathedrals a block square in the heart of thriving communities that are the only occupant of real estate that contributes nothing to society except social benevolence to the creator.
That, however, is where the exceptions need to stop. If we allow them to dictate policy regarding all citizens then we have lost control of central government and we ta a couple of steps back in the dark ages when outsiders were put to death for not subscribing to the guidelines proposed by the church.
As for this controversy over use of birth control divices and such was an etched in stone law that required every adult to participate -- zero tolerence -- it might be understandable why the clergy would take offense but this is a case of where they are told to provide the service, not invoke it. It provides an option for women to use rather than become brood sows for a selfish society who puts fun ahead of common sense. And that is what is wrong with the protest; a protest for which there is really nothing to protest.
Should any religious sect get so powerful as to dictate policy to the ruling segment of our society what would follow? Would those like me who openly profess to be atheists ber burned at the stake?
Beware what you seek lest it be more than you anticipated.
Gramps
The world-wide population is such that it's running over and we could very easily be looking at, on a wide scale, what is going on in some sectors of Africa today; famine and destitution as a rule not a rarety. At what point do we begin to hold those who propose doing nothing to curtail birth accountable for, if nothing else, turning a blind eye in that direction because it violates procedure that was established centuries ago when the world was not over-populated?
My dad, who was raised in a sparsely populated area of Oklahoma years before it became a state, told me that when he was young their community managed to keep an even keel with so few laws, most of which were based on the commandments, the few exceptions beings the carrying of weapons on Main Street, and regulations regarding tying-up horses when leaving them unattended and (GOD FORBID) no spitting on the board walks that fronted the business. Then he wondered how many laws there are on the books today in comparison and we both agreed it was impossible to make a determination. But after we discussed the topic he admitted that the simplicity of his growing years was in no way comparable to that of today. The concensus: laws are what they are because society enccourages them by living loose lives in a day and age of cramped quarters compared to when dad was a kid.
And that brings me around to everything that has changed so radically over the past century that the blind-eye approach is no longer acceptable.
Churches are blessed with any number of hands-off benefits which no other entity is in this country. The founders gave religion a lot of latitude when they laid the ground rules which trying to not regulate religious beliefs and as a result we see gigantic cathedrals a block square in the heart of thriving communities that are the only occupant of real estate that contributes nothing to society except social benevolence to the creator.
That, however, is where the exceptions need to stop. If we allow them to dictate policy regarding all citizens then we have lost control of central government and we ta a couple of steps back in the dark ages when outsiders were put to death for not subscribing to the guidelines proposed by the church.
As for this controversy over use of birth control divices and such was an etched in stone law that required every adult to participate -- zero tolerence -- it might be understandable why the clergy would take offense but this is a case of where they are told to provide the service, not invoke it. It provides an option for women to use rather than become brood sows for a selfish society who puts fun ahead of common sense. And that is what is wrong with the protest; a protest for which there is really nothing to protest.
Should any religious sect get so powerful as to dictate policy to the ruling segment of our society what would follow? Would those like me who openly profess to be atheists ber burned at the stake?
Beware what you seek lest it be more than you anticipated.
Gramps
