Comments for Threads from Henry's Web

Comment on On Choice, Coverage, and Contraception by Penny Saufley

Penny Saufley — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:10:06 +0000

I read this several days ago, and had to think on it awhile before even trying to type out my response. Even saw it discussed on Face the Nation this morning. I agreed too much with both sides. But this is what I’ve come up with. Yeah, I’ve taken a side.

I’m a white woman married to a black man. Not so long ago, and even at times today, some churches have opposed inter-racial marriage. How would we feel if a church discriminated based on race or whom a person was married too? I think the response we all saw and felt to the recent church in the South that attempted to ban inter-racial couples pretty much answers that question.

I’ve also thought about your statement about picking your employer. In today’s economy, a person pretty much has to take whatever job that is offered. And teachers, many times I expect the employees we are talking about, are mainly women. So, where are these young women suppose to go teach? When so many districts are laying teachers off?

Which lead me to another line of thought… Why are they not baning Viagra?? Baning condoms? Why is it contraception for women, and not performance enhancement for men? It seems rather sexist to me.

AND many times birth control is used for non-birth control reasons. Does an employer have the right to interfer with that? Do they have the right to know what medical conditions a person has that would require hormone therapy?

To Allen, I would say if you own a convenience store and don’t sell booze, you are not going to be in business very long. Perhaps you should have a different kind of store.

Yes, the RC church has every right to state what their position is on this subject, BUT I don’t think they have the right to tell their employees how to manage their health issues. And that is what this is, a health issue.

I was just reading on of my favorite essays today about religion, and it reminded me that the word religion comes from the Latin meaning to bind together. When a religion (or state or institution) becomes so patriarchal that it cannot lead its people but must order persons against their will, then it is not bringing us together with God, but pulling us apart.

As in all things, this needs to between first between the person and God. Then between that person and his/her doctor. The church (imho) is here to assist all of us in our relationship with God and each other. Like a good friend or brother/sister. It does not need to be our Father, we already have one of those!

Comment on Romney and Baptizing the Dead by JL Fuller

JL Fuller — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:52:15 +0000

Regarding the issue some Jews had with baptism for the dead as performed by the LDS Church, they had a problem with the dead being on the rolls of a Christian organization. They did not believe the ordinance was valid so that was never a problem. It should be made clear that having this ordinance performed does not make anyone anything. It does not mean the deceased has become a member of the church nor does it mean the dead person is henceforth known as a Mormon or carried on some membership roster of any sort. It is analogous to Catholics praying someone out of purgatory although there is considerable theological difference. Readers should look at what the act is intended to do. It extends an offering or blessing to someone who needs assistance in complying with a standard set by God which can only be performed by the living.

Comment on Romney and Baptizing the Dead by JL Fuller

JL Fuller — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:34:59 +0000

People of course are entitled to their opinions. However, the ordinance is performed either by or on behalf of a living relative of the deceased. That person has to be a close relative such as mother, father, sibling or other close relative if the deceased was born within the last 90 years. If the deceased was born prior to that, the requirement is just that the person requesting or performing the ordinance be a relative. Keep in mind this is an offering only and makes no demands on the departed soul.

Comment on Misbegotten Rules and a Cancer Survivor by Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:45:53 +0000

I would tend not to have these tense dress code rules, but then I’m not a high school teacher and don’t have to deal with the classroom. I’m willing to concede that rules which to me seem picky might well be necessary. But the exception requested is, in my view, more than reasonable even with that concession.

Comment on Romney and Baptizing the Dead by Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:44:10 +0000

Perhaps. But isn’t respect of your fellow human being more important?

Absolutely! I guess I didn’t make that clear enough. My comment about knowing he really believes what he believes was mildly sarcastic. As I look at it, that is not at all clear, so I’m taking my chance to clarify the point. I don’t think sincere belief trumps respect. Romney’s action was disrespectful and I don’t think he should have done it.

Comment on Romney and Baptizing the Dead by Penny Saufley

Penny Saufley — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:46:21 +0000

Perhaps. But isn’t respect of your fellow human being more important? How would he feel if HE was baptized post mortem into a new religion that his future family believed in? It really isn’t how I look at spirituality at all: a relationship between me and my God. This seems to be based on what I feel is the mistaken notion that I can do something to earn my way into heaven. Or in this instance, I can do something to earn my loved ones way into heaven. Being baptized, taking communion, these are things that symbolize our relationship with our Father, but don’t earn us anything. I find the whole idea ridiculous. The only thing that gives me comfort in this is that it really does nothing to those they are supposedly baptizing.

My cousin is a devote Mormon, and after my father passed, he asked me if he could baptize him. I told him no. My dad had his own relationship with God. I have no idea if he did it anyways. I hope not, but frankly I don’t think it would change anything if he had. I know he’s in heaven, waiting for me there.

Comment on Misbegotten Rules and a Cancer Survivor by Penny Saufley

Penny Saufley — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:25:13 +0000

I don’t think he even needs a reason to have long hair. If he’s a good teacher, what does the length of his hair matter? I’m female, do I have to have long hair? If I have cancer and I’m bald, will I be suspended? If I just decide to shave it all off, will I be suspended? If you’re black, do you have to have a white hairstyle? As long as it’s clean and doesn’t interfer with your job, how you wear your hair is your own business. Children should be exposed to people of differnet ethnicities, nationalities, religions. And all of these different cultures have different standards and we should not mandate teachers into a strict white American model. JMO.

Comment on On Choice, Coverage, and Contraception by Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:25:47 +0000

My problem is that while I strongly disagree with the stand of the Catholic church, this is a very important point to them. I think contraception should be covered. If I own a business, I’ll provide it. I think businesses should provide it. My problem is with requiring a church owned business to provide it, when that church regards the action as sin. From their point of view, it’s requiring them to pay for someone to sin. As much as I disagree with them, I have a hard time thinking I should participate in forcing them to commit what they see as a sin.

Comment on On Choice, Coverage, and Contraception by Allan R. Bevere

Allan R. Bevere — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:57:16 +0000

Janet,

But you miss the point. For Catholics even to offer it is wrong. It’s like if I as a Methodist, who owned a convenient store, didn’t sell alcohol because I opposed it, were told by the local authorities that I indeed had to offer it for sale with the justification that I personally am not being forced to drink it. Nevertheless, being forced to offer it violates my religious conscience. That’s the point.

Comment on On Choice, Coverage, and Contraception by Janet Lister

Janet Lister — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:14:08 +0000

The way I see it…the government is just saying they have to offer it, not make anyone take it! As one who took birth control for a number of years, I welcome it as that stuff is so expensive without insurance!!! And pregnancy even more!! If you don’t like the idea of contraception pills, don’t swallow!!!