“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- Pastor Dave Barnhart at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama

Definition of sanctimonious
1: hypocritically pious or devout

other considerations;
https://www.vasectomy.com/article/vasectomy/procedure/no-needle-vasectomy or even https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

remember the cute "my body my choice" covid 19 zinger?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7047e1.htm#:~:text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20at%20increased,1%E2%80%933)

folks like yourself weren't against late, late term abortions. i.e. grandma/pa

also a DYK https://dirtysexyhistory.com/2016/07/28/ancient-birth-control-silphium-and-the-origin-of-the-heart-shape/

As if to prove my point, Mexico, the second largest devout Catholic nation in the world, just decriminalized abortion today.

I love it when a plan comes together.

*Mic drop*

Hard talk?! Lol....I get it.

.

I already know the pornography industry preys on young women with esteem and or money issues who often don't consider the life long ramifications. Khalifa, however, knew she was asking for extra trouble by wearing a hijab in a porno, and should have known religious zealots wouldn't be amused. I'm not excusing those who threatened her, just pointing out that she should have known portraying a devout Muslim woman in that way is almost as intentionally provocative as doing pornography in black face. She didn't say "no" because she didn't want to end her career, not because she was forced or coerced. She knew it wasn't smart before she did it.

I'm glad she at least says she accepts 100% of the responsibility, as she said, it was totally her choice. Sadly, the rest of what she said was assigning the responsibility to others and playing dumb. What 21 year old thinks making professional pornography is going to stay secret, especially the kind she made? She now wants to force actors (or maybe just actresses) to have any contract approved by a lawyer before signing, with a 3 day cooling off period? Good luck. If they only make $1000 per shoot, how are they supposed to pay an attorney $1000 to review their contracts?

I thought it's more two wrongs exposing an established and growing wrong.

No, if they COMMUNICATE what they're doing, and do that well, it's not bad communication, and they did. It's not an objective fact, it's only your opinion. Sorry. "Bad" is a subjective word, not objective.

No sir, Westborough is not more accurate. They claim to be Christian, followers of Jesus, but ignore the new testament entirely. That is the antithesis of accurate. Because they lie and claim something doesn't make it accurate, their actions contradict their claims every time to a much greater degree than these Satanists (who I don't think denied the existence of Satan, they could be incredibly devout for all we know, they're simply clear that their main current objective is to stop the government's illegal and immoral support of Christianity to the exclusion of other "faiths", which in no way denies belief in Satan and embodies their churches tenets, unlike "Christian" anti abortionists who compromise their own religious morals to tell others how they must think and live).

Perhaps you are simply confused about what "Satanist" means?
Because you have a specific definition in mind doesn't make it correct .....if you can call Westborough "Christian" then obviously your standards are sub basement low, and anyone is whatever they claim, any evidence to the contrary be damned.

Again, when they COMMUNICATE both their actions and intent, that's not bad communication just because you don't like it, and certainly not just because you make assumptions about their beliefs and their zealotry.

But with population increases, even if it were up to 7% after decades, there wouldn't be a loss of business, just a slower increase, which still might be enough....but I think 7% is greatly inflated and includes non vegans and part time vegans who claim they are devout.

I think you're closer to the truth with your last. Free advertising, and vegans will flock to the business because they have so few businesses serving them, making them a good type of customer to have (at least until they start driving away non vegans with their anti-meat diatribes).

I barely understood what his point is or why Dave Chapelle was "decapitated". He supposedly made 500 Million for Comedy Central and they offered him only 10% instead of 50% and then they made a character attack on him . While Chapelle went to Africa and became a "devout Muslim" and now is back they spread a rumor about cocaine abuse. Haven't heard or read anything about that but ok. Pretty wild story.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he lived again, and barely anecdotal evidence that his body went missing.
You vastly overestimate the theories acceptance outside devout religious theological scholars.
It's not all nonsense, just the magic parts.

History. Constantine converted and compiled the bible to consolidate and grow his political powers.

Satan wrote and fulfilled the bible and prophecies to trick you, just like every other religion. See how that falls apart?

Verified "truth" is a fact demonstrable in the physical world.
I don't buy into isms.

No, they were clearly instructions to individuals, not government...please. Even accepting your view, it's still killing, so no one could carry out the governmental stoning imperative...catch 22, you defy god either way.

But, since I don't believe, I don't accept or reject him.

Ahhh, so he didn't die for the world, only his supporters, you say, with non supporters (mostly tricked thorough no fault of their own) getting eternal torture. Diabolical, monstrous in fact.

Only like cancer that only exists when you believe it does.

I do those things for myself, it's working fine and I take responsibility for myself. I would suggest if Jesus worked as you say, to perfection, no Christian would ever be depressed or do wrong, they would be perfect people without problems....1)what about when you/they don't behave perfectly, is Jesus busy?

If there was zero law enforcement on earth and no vigilantes, it would be like that.

A sign, like the cardboard sign the driver's holding? Yep.

I might get in the car out of curiosity, but wouldn't just accept that coincidence or mental implantation means divinity. I would think it's likely I'm being visited by ET, who would be easily mistaken for gods by believers.

2)Again, I must ask, if you know he has that power of personal revelation, but chose to not use it, why would you defy your own God's wishes to try to convert others? Maybe he needs us heathens to be heathens.

Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

A very devout Republican friend of mine said to me recently, "you'll be happy to know that I don't like the Republican president."

I told him, "I'd be happier if you had a Republican President right now that you did like."

@bcglorf
this video is from larken rose,a seriously devout libertarian.
he views statism as a form a religion,and that if a state is given too much power it will always lead to a form of tyranny.

i didn't post this as some kind of statement,or that the content reflects my own philosophy or ideals,but i try to understand all points of view to the best of my ability,even if i disagree.

so i am not making the case for when it is ok to shoot a cop,but i find larken's arguments compelling on a philosophical level.

because he does have a point in regards to america's hyper-militarized policing over the past decade.that is something that should concern us all.

anyways,for me it is just hearing a viewpoint from a different camp other than my own,and i thought his argument interesting.

@Jinx
my main point is the the fringe of both ends of the political spectrum dominate the discussion,and BOTH are fucking horrible,ill-thought,narrow-minded and petulant.

they are part of the disease.

not every person who identifies as left is a snowflake,nor is everyone who identifies as right a bed wetter.

i wrote extensively on why trump won,and would happy to share if you would like me to,but to answer your question:no.snowflakes are not to blame (and i am struggling how you conflated that to be honest).

i have been:pepper sprayed,maced and beaten by three cops.
i have been thrown in solitary for days without food or water,and no working toilet.
i have been punched in the face by a supposedly devout christian,and i have been publicly harrassed for mistaking a young woman for a man at a gay bar.

is there anything else you would like to know to assuage the MASSIVE presumptions you made in your comment?

look dude,if you can't see that both the ultra left and ultra right are fucking bonkers and have lost their way.they co not even come close to representing the majority,and by their behavior..i do not think they really care.

so why should we?
the people who recognize that shit has gone sideways.that the politicians are purchased corporate whores,and this binary politics is just a device to keep us divided.

i am an anarchist,but i am not stupid,and refuse to be coddled or manipulated into buying into shitty philosophies and even worse politics.

the ultra left are fucking cry-babies,and the ultra right neo-fascists are bed wetters.

and both have lost their way.

Obviously a devout practitioner of Fentonism.

My 46 year experience with 'christians' is a near mirror of your reception.
I have never met a single christian that was not overtly judgmental, derisive, and eventually dismissive because of my lack of faith in their religion, including family. Not a single one. I think the fallacy of 'christian love and acceptance' is just that, a fallacy they tell themselves about themselves in an effort to ignore and/or excuse their own self righteous and divisive actions...likely many truly believe it.

I try to not judge people who live their lives based on the perceived whim of an invisible friend, but it's nearly impossible since they all seem to act like judgmental infantile morons. I'm also waiting to meet one of these loving, non judgmental christians, but of the thousands upon thousands of self professed devout christians I've met in my lifetime, not a single truly tolerant one has presented itself (although they aren't all rude about it)....I have come to the conclusion that, if they EVER existed in the US, they were mostly murdered by the 'christian right wing', and any left are in hiding, fearing for their lives.

Absolutely....but you asked ME what I thought, not them. ;-)
I gave my opinion, which is often not the normal or accepted opinion.
There is a single, original text for each religion, the sects offer different interpretations and translations, but use the same originals. If you read the original bible in Latin (or whatever language the testaments etc. were first written in), you can interpret for yourself the exact 'words of god', not someone else's interpretation/translation.

As I see it, those you describe were/are religious, but if they stray from the text in any way, they are not (insert a specific sect of Christianity here). It's like the difference between a pick up basketball game and a professional one, they're both technically players of basketball, but only one is a "basketball player"
I have at least met many who SAID they thought that....but none that had the nerve to try it....but if your text says that's the prescribed treatment for an 'infidel' and you ignore it, you aren't following your religion, so aren't an (insert sect of any religion here).

I disagree that it's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, (EDIT: It's a "very few true Scotsman" argument) it's a strict reading of the rules of religions and allowing no personal interpretation or modification, as they all REQUIRE. Just because very few people (but not zero) actually practice religion as their texts prescribe doesn't change the rules for religion, it just makes them non devout...and I say, to me, that makes them not part of their chosen religion, but fans of it, since they don't actually practice it.
I do agree, that opinion is based on a far more strict interpretation of religious rules than most people's, but I can't understand how you can ignore a single letter of the "word of god" if you believe, so I can only believe that most people don't actually fully believe, so aren't devout, so (IMO) aren't "Christians" (or "Muslims", or "Jewish", etc).

EDIT: I certainly hope my environment as a child was the exception, I would hate to think that everyone went through that as a kid. It was a daily struggle living as a vocal atheist in Texas in the 70's.

IMO, to be devout in any religion, you must be a fundamentalist. If you believe you have access to the direct instructions from GOD, and you believe in that god, yet you ignore the parts you dislike, you aren't following the religion and are an infidel, not devout. EDIT: Unless your text specifically allows you to use your own morality and interpretations, but I have not heard of a religion that does that.
As I see it, if you apply your own morality you are creating your own religion. Codified religions come with a defined set of morals that are unmodifiable, indisputable and unquestionable. If you question them, you question god, so can't be devout or following the religion. (This would be a good reason for any true believer to read only the original texts in their original tongue, not a translated version that's someone else's interpretation of the meaning.)

The religious texts are the central authority, they all contain specific rules and requirements. If you ignore some of those, IMO, you aren't honestly religious, you're a fan of religion.

I grew up in the deep south. I can say for certain that you are wrong that almost everyone ignores the outdated bits, but it's correct that most do hide the fact that they believe them because they know it makes them look terrible....but get them at a church picnic and you'll find out they do think slavery is fine, and whores should be stoned to death, etc. They are just mostly too chicken shit to do it themselves, as their book directs them to, because they're afraid of repercussion (and because they don't really believe god will protect them for being righteous, or that heaven is enough reward for being a martyr).