Why I Am Not A Christian

[Newby]

That you call my views 'bitching' says alot.

I'm not your enemy, Sky.

That's good. Now how about acting like a friend? I have some evidence that evolution is being taught in the schools:

In western Wisconsin, the small Grantsburg School District now requires that alternative theories of evolution be taught.

• In Ohio, the state school board passed a measure that encourages the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design," a hypothesis that says life is so complex that some intelligent force was responsible.

• In Kansas, the defeat this month of a "pro-science" incumbent on the state school board by a candidate who had questioned evolution has shifted the balance of power on the 10-member board and ensures that the issue will come up again. The board ended the teaching of evolution in 1999, then reversed that decision after a subsequent election. It has been deadlocked since.

Debates over religion, science and natural phenomena are not limited to schools and evolution. The bookstore at Grand Canyon National Park sells Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a Colorado River guide. The book says the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood, not through millennia of erosion by the Colorado River.

The fight over evolution is heating up as the country tries to come to terms with the role of religion in government. The American public remains divided. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 1,105 people conducted Nov. 19-21, 48% said religion has too much political influence in American life, and 40% said it has too little influence. Seven percent said religion has about the right amount of political influence. The poll's margin of error was +/—3 percentage points.
USATODAY.com - School science debate has evolved

And what's wrong with that?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm not your enemy, Sky.

That's good. Now how about acting like a friend? I have some evidence that evolution is being taught in the schools:

In western Wisconsin, the small Grantsburg School District now requires that alternative theories of evolution be taught.

• In Ohio, the state school board passed a measure that encourages the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design," a hypothesis that says life is so complex that some intelligent force was responsible.

• In Kansas, the defeat this month of a "pro-science" incumbent on the state school board by a candidate who had questioned evolution has shifted the balance of power on the 10-member board and ensures that the issue will come up again. The board ended the teaching of evolution in 1999, then reversed that decision after a subsequent election. It has been deadlocked since.

Debates over religion, science and natural phenomena are not limited to schools and evolution. The bookstore at Grand Canyon National Park sells Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a Colorado River guide. The book says the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood, not through millennia of erosion by the Colorado River.

The fight over evolution is heating up as the country tries to come to terms with the role of religion in government. The American public remains divided. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 1,105 people conducted Nov. 19-21, 48% said religion has too much political influence in American life, and 40% said it has too little influence. Seven percent said religion has about the right amount of political influence. The poll's margin of error was +/—3 percentage points.
USATODAY.com - School science debate has evolved

And what's wrong with that?

You said that creationisim is not being taught in the schools and I show that it is. I did not say it was 'wrong'. I have stated my two cents worth is that I prefer for creationism to be taught in a comparative religion class and not in a science class.

America is divided on how much power if wants religion to have in government.

 

[CurveLight]

The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays. All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.

It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates. If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.

 

[CurveLight]

You said that creationisim is not being taught in the schools and I show that it is. I did not say it was 'wrong'. I have stated my two cents worth is that I prefer for creationism to be taught in a comparative religion class and not in a science class.

America is divided on how much power if wants religion to have in government.

It's not that divided........when was the last time you saw a major protest for eliminating Federally paid holidays for specifically Christian ceremonies?

Imagine what would happen if Muslims demanded equal treatment? It's okay if our entire national business schedule revolves around Christianity. We're the good guys!

 

[Newby]

That's good. Now how about acting like a friend? I have some evidence that evolution is being taught in the schools:

In western Wisconsin, the small Grantsburg School District now requires that alternative theories of evolution be taught.

• In Ohio, the state school board passed a measure that encourages the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design," a hypothesis that says life is so complex that some intelligent force was responsible.

• In Kansas, the defeat this month of a "pro-science" incumbent on the state school board by a candidate who had questioned evolution has shifted the balance of power on the 10-member board and ensures that the issue will come up again. The board ended the teaching of evolution in 1999, then reversed that decision after a subsequent election. It has been deadlocked since.

Debates over religion, science and natural phenomena are not limited to schools and evolution. The bookstore at Grand Canyon National Park sells Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a Colorado River guide. The book says the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood, not through millennia of erosion by the Colorado River.

The fight over evolution is heating up as the country tries to come to terms with the role of religion in government. The American public remains divided. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 1,105 people conducted Nov. 19-21, 48% said religion has too much political influence in American life, and 40% said it has too little influence. Seven percent said religion has about the right amount of political influence. The poll's margin of error was +/—3 percentage points.
USATODAY.com - School science debate has evolved

And what's wrong with that?

You said that creationisim is not being taught in the schools and I show that it is. I did not say it was 'wrong'. I have stated my two cents worth is that I prefer for creationism to be taught in a comparative religion class and not in a science class.

America is divided on how much power if wants religion to have in government.

I didn't say that it wasn't in all schools, in most it is not. I was saying that every christian in the country is not out 'dominating' school boards or their respresentatives to have laws enforced to uphold their beliefs, I doubt even 1% are.

Why should evolution be taught in a science class as tho it were fact? It's not proven any more than intelligent design is. What's the difference between the non-christian or non-religious clamoring and getting all up in arms whenever a school addresses religion in a class, but then they want to shut the religious up whenever we do the same thing when it comes to their unproven theories? Like I said, it's the pot calling the kettle black, maybe the religious will shut up whenever the non-religious shut up as well. Until then, both sides have a right to voice their opinions, protest, contact their representatives concerning legislation, etc... The religious are no more pushing their views on anyone than the non-religious are, so don't cast stones at others when you live in a glass house.

 

[Newby]

The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays. All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.

It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates. If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.

I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either. It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator. No one is sin free.

 

[CurveLight]

The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays. All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.

It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates. If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.

I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either. It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator. No one is sin free.

Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy? I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma. But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs. No matter how you look at it, it's rape.

 

[Newby]

The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays. All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.

It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates. If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.

I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either. It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator. No one is sin free.

Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy? I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma. But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs. No matter how you look at it, it's rape.

Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.

 

[CurveLight]

I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either. It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator. No one is sin free.

Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy? I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma. But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs. No matter how you look at it, it's rape.

Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.

Women don't lay eggs and walk away. It's not that the pregnancy is in the woman's body, it's that her body is the pregancy. I don't care what label is applied be it "innocent human, embryo, baby, oh shit college tuition, or zygote." Those terms are red herrings because no matter how much you dance you can't step away from the fact the law invades women between their legs. When guys commit rape what has happened? They have forced women to submit their bodies to someone else regardless of their wishes. Laws that control women's bodies are no less invasive so in one case we pass laws to send the criminals to prison and in the exact same violation some want to pass laws that would send the victim to prison and reward the criminal.

Before you guffaw at the comparison try to understand what is being compared. Privacy. Women have the right to say no to sex because they have autonomy over their bodies and that is legally protected. The same principles must apply in the abortion issue. The biggest problem is not realizing positions should be based in principles and not emotions.

The other side of the coin is the consistency issue. I could respect anti-choicers more if they were consistent. Many say the child has a right to be born on the basis of a Right to Life. Sounds good. Until you get into related issues like healthcare and education. If every unborn deserves and equal right to life then every born deserves an equal right to healtcare and education. This means all children, regardless of parents' income should have the exact same access to education and healthcare. For some reason, when the baby is born it becomes a matter of "luck." What happened to all that Right to Life stuff?

 

[Newby]

Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy? I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma. But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs. No matter how you look at it, it's rape.

Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.

Women don't lay eggs and walk away. It's not that the pregnancy is in the woman's body, it's that her body is the pregancy. I don't care what label is applied be it "innocent human, embryo, baby, oh shit college tuition, or zygote." Those terms are red herrings because no matter how much you dance you can't step away from the fact the law invades women between their legs. When guys commit rape what has happened? They have forced women to submit their bodies to someone else regardless of their wishes. Laws that control women's bodies are no less invasive so in one case we pass laws to send the criminals to prison and in the exact same violation some want to pass laws that would send the victim to prison and reward the criminal.

Before you guffaw at the comparison try to understand what is being compared. Privacy. Women have the right to say no to sex because they have autonomy over their bodies and that is legally protected. The same principles must apply in the abortion issue. The biggest problem is not realizing positions should be based in principles and not emotions.

The other side of the coin is the consistency issue. I could respect anti-choicers more if they were consistent. Many say the child has a right to be born on the basis of a Right to Life. Sounds good. Until you get into related issues like healthcare and education. If every unborn deserves and equal right to life then every born deserves an equal right to healtcare and education. This means all children, regardless of parents' income should have the exact same access to education and healthcare. For some reason, when the baby is born it becomes a matter of "luck." What happened to all that Right to Life stuff?

I'm a mom to two boys, I certainly don't need you to explain to me how it works. I've carried two boys to term and gave birth, they're the best things that have ever happened to me.

The woman has obviously allowed something else between her legs before any baby came along, so why is that okay to do but then just get rid of the consequences like it's a piece of trash? When you're allowing sex to happen, you're well aware of the potential consequences and if you don't want them, then don't have sex or make sure you're using good birth control. It's not that difficult. Tell me why there are so many abortions in our country whenever birth control is easily and readily available to everyone? What's the excuse? No one forced the woman to have sex, she made that choice. No one forced a thief to rob a bank, but the theif damn well has to pay the consequences for their actions by potentially losing personal freedom to spend time in prison.

Right to life is in no way comparable to any other rights, especially education or healthcare. Not to mention that all children are educated and low income families receive medical welfare for their children. So, I'm not sure why that would even come up.

You're killing a baby, another person, that's the bottom line. The value of human life is a couple hundred bucks, what a nice thing that says about our society.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either. It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator. No one is sin free.

Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy? I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma. But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs. No matter how you look at it, it's rape.

Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.

Does it matter to you when a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape, or incest, or if she terminates the pregnancy because her life is in danger? Do you think the decision to terminate a pregnancy lies with the woman and her mate, their minister and doctor or you?

How do you feel about the morning after pill?

 

[CurveLight]

Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.

Women don't lay eggs and walk away. It's not that the pregnancy is in the woman's body, it's that her body is the pregancy. I don't care what label is applied be it "innocent human, embryo, baby, oh shit college tuition, or zygote." Those terms are red herrings because no matter how much you dance you can't step away from the fact the law invades women between their legs. When guys commit rape what has happened? They have forced women to submit their bodies to someone else regardless of their wishes. Laws that control women's bodies are no less invasive so in one case we pass laws to send the criminals to prison and in the exact same violation some want to pass laws that would send the victim to prison and reward the criminal.

Before you guffaw at the comparison try to understand what is being compared. Privacy. Women have the right to say no to sex because they have autonomy over their bodies and that is legally protected. The same principles must apply in the abortion issue. The biggest problem is not realizing positions should be based in principles and not emotions.

The other side of the coin is the consistency issue. I could respect anti-choicers more if they were consistent. Many say the child has a right to be born on the basis of a Right to Life. Sounds good. Until you get into related issues like healthcare and education. If every unborn deserves and equal right to life then every born deserves an equal right to healtcare and education. This means all children, regardless of parents' income should have the exact same access to education and healthcare. For some reason, when the baby is born it becomes a matter of "luck." What happened to all that Right to Life stuff?

I'm a mom to two boys, I certainly don't need you to explain to me how it works. I've carried two boys to term and gave birth, they're the best things that have ever happened to me.

The woman has obviously allowed something else between her legs before any baby came along, so why is that okay to do but then just get rid of the consequences like it's a piece of trash? When you're allowing sex to happen, you're well aware of the potential consequences and if you don't want them, then don't have sex or make sure you're using good birth control. It's not that difficult. Tell me why there are so many abortions in our country whenever birth control is easily and readily available to everyone? What's the excuse? No one forced the woman to have sex, she made that choice. No one forced a thief to rob a bank, but the theif damn well has to pay the consequences for their actions by potentially losing personal freedom to spend time in prison.

Right to life is in no way comparable to any other rights, especially education or healthcare. Not to mention that all children are educated and low income families receive medical welfare for their children. So, I'm not sure why that would even come up.

You're killing a baby, another person, that's the bottom line. The value of human life is a couple hundred bucks, what a nice thing that says about our society.

Mostly emotion with very little substance or a response to principles. What is the logical model that shows your "Right to Life" is completely separate from healthcare? How can you separate the very institution devoted specifically to preserving and saving lives from a "Right to Life" claim?

It seems like your entire position is rooted in emotion with an attempt to justify it by lack of ability to control other women. It doesn't matter if birth control is used or not. It doesn't matter if a chick bangs two guys every night for a month or has sex with one guy on an annual basis. None of that addresses the fact it is an issue of Privacy. The fact you bring up sexual habits to try and defend your position reveals more about it not being about "protecting an innocent life."

When you use emotion instead of reason and principle in forming your political positions you are swamped in blinded hypocrisy.

 

[Newby]

Women don't lay eggs and walk away. It's not that the pregnancy is in the woman's body, it's that her body is the pregancy. I don't care what label is applied be it "innocent human, embryo, baby, oh shit college tuition, or zygote." Those terms are red herrings because no matter how much you dance you can't step away from the fact the law invades women between their legs. When guys commit rape what has happened? They have forced women to submit their bodies to someone else regardless of their wishes. Laws that control women's bodies are no less invasive so in one case we pass laws to send the criminals to prison and in the exact same violation some want to pass laws that would send the victim to prison and reward the criminal.

Before you guffaw at the comparison try to understand what is being compared. Privacy. Women have the right to say no to sex because they have autonomy over their bodies and that is legally protected. The same principles must apply in the abortion issue. The biggest problem is not realizing positions should be based in principles and not emotions.

The other side of the coin is the consistency issue. I could respect anti-choicers more if they were consistent. Many say the child has a right to be born on the basis of a Right to Life. Sounds good. Until you get into related issues like healthcare and education. If every unborn deserves and equal right to life then every born deserves an equal right to healtcare and education. This means all children, regardless of parents' income should have the exact same access to education and healthcare. For some reason, when the baby is born it becomes a matter of "luck." What happened to all that Right to Life stuff?

I'm a mom to two boys, I certainly don't need you to explain to me how it works. I've carried two boys to term and gave birth, they're the best things that have ever happened to me.

The woman has obviously allowed something else between her legs before any baby came along, so why is that okay to do but then just get rid of the consequences like it's a piece of trash? When you're allowing sex to happen, you're well aware of the potential consequences and if you don't want them, then don't have sex or make sure you're using good birth control. It's not that difficult. Tell me why there are so many abortions in our country whenever birth control is easily and readily available to everyone? What's the excuse? No one forced the woman to have sex, she made that choice. No one forced a thief to rob a bank, but the theif damn well has to pay the consequences for their actions by potentially losing personal freedom to spend time in prison.

Right to life is in no way comparable to any other rights, especially education or healthcare. Not to mention that all children are educated and low income families receive medical welfare for their children. So, I'm not sure why that would even come up.

You're killing a baby, another person, that's the bottom line. The value of human life is a couple hundred bucks, what a nice thing that says about our society.

Mostly emotion with very little substance or a response to principles. What is the logical model that shows your "Right to Life" is completely separate from healthcare? How can you separate the very institution devoted specifically to preserving and saving lives from a "Right to Life" claim?

It seems like your entire position is rooted in emotion with an attempt to justify it by lack of ability to control other women. It doesn't matter if birth control is used or not. It doesn't matter if a chick bangs two guys every night for a month or has sex with one guy on an annual basis. None of that addresses the fact it is an issue of Privacy. The fact you bring up sexual habits to try and defend your position reveals more about it not being about "protecting an innocent life."

When you use emotion instead of reason and principle in forming your political positions you are swamped in blinded hypocrisy.

No, my position is about personal responsibility for one's actions. There are consequences to actions, if you can't handle the consequences then don't do the action. Murder is not the solution to not live up to responsibilities for actions that you have taken of your own free will knowing what potential consequences there for the actions you took. Murder is the cop out, the easy way out, and it's affecting someone else's life, not just your own now. It has nothing to do with privacy, it's murder. What percentage of abortions are for birth control? Do you have any idea how many babies have been murdered in the US in the last 30 some years? I guess privacy is more important than life to you.

Yeah, I just want to control everyone else's behavior.

And sorry that I'm emotional about the loss of innocent human life, it sure beats the hell out of having no compassion for life at all.

 

[Newby]

You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life. Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life? It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control. But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life. I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion? Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Food for thought:

Our culture places great value on something called "moral clarity." Moral clarity rarely is defined, but I infer it means ignoring the messier aspects of complex moral issues so that one can apply simple, rigid rules to solving them. If you take all facets of an issue into account, you risk not being clear.

Moral clarifiers love to rework all ethical problems into simple equations of right and wrong, good and bad. There is an assumption that an issue can have only two sides, and that one side must be entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. Complex issues are simplified and oversimplified and stripped of all ambiguous aspects to make them fit into "right" and "wrong" boxes.

To a Buddhist, this is a dishonest and unskillful way to approach morality.

In the case of abortion, often people who have taken a side glibly dismiss the concerns of any other side. For example, in much anti-abortion literature women who have abortions are portrayed as selfish or thoughtless, or sometimes just plain evil. The very real problems an unwanted pregnancy might bring to a woman's life are not honestly acknowledged. Moralists sometimes discuss embryos, pregnancy and abortion without mentioning women at all. At the same time, those who favor legal abortion sometimes fail to acknowledge the humanity of the fetus.

The Fruits of Absolutism
Although Buddhism discourages abortion, we see that criminalizing abortion causes much suffering. The Alan Guttmacher Institute documents that criminalizing abortion does not stop it or even reduce it. Instead, abortion goes underground and is performed in unsafe conditions.

In desperation, women submit to unsterile procedures. They drink bleach or turpentine, perforate themselves with sticks and coat hangers, and even jump off roofs. Worldwide, unsafe abortion procedures cause the deaths of about 67,000 women per year, mostly in nations in which abortion is illegal.

Those with "moral clarity" can ignore this suffering. A Buddhist cannot.

In his book The Mind of Clover: Essays in Zen Buddhist Ethics, Robert Aitken Roshi said (p.17), "The absolute position, when isolated, omits human details completely. Doctrines, including Buddhism, are meant to be used. Beware of them taking life of their own, for then they use us."
Buddhism and Abortion - The Buddhist View of the Morality of Abortion

 

[Newby]

Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion? Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?

I'll show her as much compassion as she shows her unborn child.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion? Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?

I'll show her as much compassion as she shows her unborn child.

I think both pregnant parents and fetus deserve an equal kind regard.

 

[Madeline]

Newby, IMO that lack of compassion is shown by most christians to those of us in the US with whom they disagree. So what if I have a bright kidlet and want that child to learn actual science? So what if I want my child's friends and boyfriends to have some working knowledge of sex and birth control? So what if I want to protect the younger, mostly poorer women in my community from the horrors of illegal abortion? So what if I love my gay friends and want to attend their marriage?

When anyone's values diverge from yours and you feel religion gives you a basis for condemning or marginalizing their behavior, you don't hesitate to do so. As you have acknowledged, christians form an overwhelming majority in this country.

Can you understand why some of us resent the bullying?

 

[Neubarth]

The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?

Yep, until you get AIDS, herpes and fifteen other venereal diseases.

Remember, when there is a prohibition in scripture, it is usually there because of thousands of years of seeing the consequence of living without the prohibition. Back when eating pork could kill you, many religions forbade the consumption of pork.

Since liberal sex resulted in the spread of venereal disease and death therefrom, liberal sex was outlawed.

Just think about it, if there was no sex outside of marriage, there would be NO AIDS, and all those other venereal diseases. Makes sense, don't it?

Back when men were more prone to kill somebody for flirting with their wives, all conduct of that nature was prohibited by most religions. It resulted in far fewer men being killed because they "Looked" at another man's wife.

The reality is that if it saves lives and makes sense, most religions pick it up eventually.