Religion and politics.

Remove all ads!

Churches are not charitable organizations. Unless you think that hiring priests to preach their faith and building new churches is charity. That is advancing their own agenda not charity. Some if it might go to charity sure but I dare say that not even most of the money the Churches get goes to charity.

The US does not have the same system as Finland though where you have to pay an extra government tax which then goes to support the Finnish evangelic lutheranian church. Of course those who belong to other faith groups or have resigned do not have to pay that tax, but it's still a stupid way to organize church funding.

Money going direct to charity could of course be an exemption from taxing which of course would open up possibilities for abuse, but I think even that's better than the current tax-exempt status.

In the US sure and possibly even right now in Finland, but I'm pretty convinced that the change will come around eventually.

 

Now you want to proscribe the doctrine that we teach? You want to tell those who preach what parts of the bible they can and can't preach? You want to accuse us of bigotry because we tell you that some things that you may want legitimized by the government are sins?

I still hold to the accusation that those that want the Pope to shut up on political issues are only the ones that disagree with him. If you can have groups like the Gay Rights lobby and the Pro-Choice movement trying to reshape commonly held Morality, then shouldn't the advocates of traditional morality have their say? Let all sides speak or let no side speak.

The only place where Religeous leaders should use their position to address issues are on moral grounds, like abortion or Gay Marriage. They should have a voice to attempt to influence programs to help the poor and the needy. They believe that they are fighting to save the souls of the people. They can't just shut up because someone doesn't like what they have to say.

 

He never said, nor indicated, any of that. He said that if churches are politically active, they ought to lose their tax-empt status.

You can call that proscription if you like, but that ain't what it is. What it is, is classifying and treating organizations according to their behavior. Politically active groups should not be tax-exempt, no matter what other works they may be involved with.

 

Ditto AMaster. It's one thing for churches to say to their own flocks, "The government allows [something] to happen, but we believe that's wrong so you shouldn't take part" and quite another for them to say to the government, "We believe that [something] is wrong, so no one, even those who don't believe like we do, should be allowed to do that."

 

Well, AMaster and Rally stole my thunder( ) so I will try not to make a big scene about this but...

No, no, no. I only charged those who espouse bigotry with that charge. Let me ask you: would you accuse the neo-nazis of bigotry just because they tell you that some things you may want legitamized by the government are sins/affronts to nature(interacial dating, toleratring jews etc.)?

See the problem there? You cannot wrap bigotry in your religious blanket and then tell everyone they are wrong to call it bigotry. I do not give a flying **** how you interpret whatever your Bible says, especially when you go to drastic lengths of re-interpretation to get around the fact that your Bible also gives the OK to slavery, misogyny, genocide, polygamy, etc.. If you want to selectively interpret it so, then fine but if you are preaching bigotry or politics then you are not behaving as a charity adn them's the breaks.

When a group decides they want to act as a charity(and get tax-exempt status) they make a decision to act as a charity(that means helping people...PERIOD. Not helping people while preaching politics to the captive audience!), Not as a charity/conversion machine.

No, but when he does use his position to influence politics AND he is expressing bigotry it tends to draw our attention more than if he were using his position to advocate for human rights/civil liberties.

You mean YOUR morality. I don't know where you get the "commonly held" nonsense nor do I see the ad populi and/or ad numeri as a valid argument.

Here is the difference: The gay rights lobby is not seeking tax-exempt status to preach that heterosexuals should not be allowed to have the same rights and freedoms that gays/bisexuals have.

Everyone should have the right to whatever opinion but I should not be forced to financially support YOUR opinions on morality and attempts to mandate YOUR morality through the government. You want to play politics...? Pay taxes.

Ridiculous. What issue is NOT a "moral" issue? WHat about campaign finanace reform? Should the Church of Poverty be allowed to endores a canidate who supports campaign finanace reform because to them this is the highest moral issue?
What about the new religion I just started called Antipropagandism? We seek to speak out to the FCC that legislation is needed to curtail the dishonesty of the Fox News Network. SHould I recieve tax-exempt status to preach this?

I do not care if they believe it is raining guano in antartica! You cannot take a POLITICAL OPINION or bigotry, wrap it in your religious clothing and call it "charity"! That is nonsense. Adolph Hitler believed he was trying to save God's children. It doesn't make the nazism a charity.

No one is asking them to. We just want THEM to pay for their OWN political campaigns.

 

Soooo...you propose that taxes be levied on MADD, NAACP, AARP, NRA, Moveon.org, Daughters of the American Revolution, NOW, VFW, The Red Cross, etc...etc...etc?

Or do we just tax those groups we don't agree with?

Better yet...let's forbid "not-for-profit-political-action-groups" to assemble and meet UNTIL they've paid the appropriate tax!

And then we can get rid of that pesky document called "The Constitution".

Like it or not folks, there's a reason that these groups need to be free from taxation.

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, dunno (VFW?), and probably not, respectively.

I'm hardly a political scholar, but how do you go from "tax political action groups" to "get rid of the constitution"? AFAIK, the constitution doesn't say anything about not taxing political action groups.

 

LOL! It is a favorite tact of political extremists whether they be liberal or conservative. Go off on a rant and finish with "Hell whay stoip there? Why don't we just wipe out @$$es with the constituion/start butchering kindergarteners/outlaw breathing!"

Hyperbole at it's most bland and uncreative.

 

The Church should not wield political power, let alone arms. The Church ideally draws spiritual power from being weak and unarmed and still speaking out when evil things happen.

However, what is evil is not for parliaments, nor for political activists to decide. Thou shalt not kill, steal, commit adultery, testify false, covet your neighbour's wife or any item.

When the innocent are being killed, it's the time for the Church to speak. Same also if moral principles are being rooted out in favour of indifferent permissivism.

This is why the Church will always be at odds with politicians and activists.

 

Yes, yes. John Paul came out during his last years and preached against the War in Iraq, the death penalty, abortion and an assortment of birth control methods. He labeled this very consistent doctrine, "a culture of life."

Well, along came King George II, who went to see the Pope and came back to America and decided on using the term the "culture of life." This is from the "hanging governor" from Texas who would pull the plug on anyone on death row without batting an eye. Then there was Iraq and all the families that are now missing children and the children who are missing their parents - the innocents orphaned for the "cause of democracy." We don't hear much about the culture of life when George speaks on Iraq. Funny thing.

But then there is abortion; and stem-cell research, and what pops out? The culture of life! You would think, for a moment, that George had actually been learning something from Pope John Paul. And he was - he was learning how to futher his sorry political hide. Plus, the culture of life had a nice ring with all those American Protestant church goers who had thought the pope was the anti-christ.

Politics and religion are a strange mix. Take a look at the interlocking pieces: John Kerry could be seen as anti-religious for his views on abortion; but George can't be viewed as anti-religious for his views on the death penalty and the War in Iraq. In fact, by killing all those bad people, (those who are not like us) George is doing God's work. Nice.

 

But Chandos, That's George W. taking the name of God in vain. It's a case of a politician claiming to be "God's Candidate" in an election. Supporting enough of Christian doctrine to score big points with the faithful that he was hoping would vote for him (and more of the doctrine than John Kerry). His stance was that by condemning Gay Marriage and Abortion, he would (and did) secure the support of the Religeous right.

This is not the same as if Mormon Leader, Gordon B. Hinkley had endorsed him or any republican candidate from the pulpit. In fact, this did not happen. What religeous leaders do, and I've tried to defend this point all along, is to address an issue and preach the doctrine of their church on that topic.

Much of the Bible must be read within the historical context of when it was written. Those practices were in place at those times. But I don't believe that they are preaching bigotry. They preach morality and doctrine, not hatred.

You can't preach that something is okay when it is explicitly forbidden. Where's the integrity when you're teaching things contrary to the book you get your doctrine from. It's like teaching a math class and starting out by saying that the textbook is bull****. Likewise, we can't ask a religeon that forbids homosexual relations to suddenly accept Gay Marriage.

Thank you Chev, you hit another of my points better than I could. When a proposed law threatens to legitimize that which is considerred immoral, Churches will speak out. It is not a position of hatred to those who engage in homosexual behaviour, but it's not an open liscence to do so either.

You obviously oppose these ends, but don't try to tell me that it's wrong for us to speak out from our view point just because you don't agree with us. I have maintained that it's not right to preach for an individual candidate, but it is their mandate to speak out on the issues. That's not playing politics, that's preaching their faith. I also guarantee that any politician that tries to push that agenda will never get elected to anything again.

 

The Catholic Church preached "thou shalt not kill" long before the US came into existence. And the commandment was preached long before the Catholic Church came into existence. Is the Catholic Church in any way obligated to adjust her doctrines to a particular political option in the US to suit you?

If you haven't noticed, even birth control is covered in the NT. Also, what's wrong with a doctrine being consistent? I would suppose something were wrong with the inconsistent ones.

So you are blaming the Catholic Church for Bush's inconsistency? He isn't even Catholic.

 

@Chevalier

NO. When actual INNOCENTS are being KILLED, it is time for HUMANS to speak. We don't need the church for that.

The problem here is that innocents are often not being killed but the church chooses to wrap issues in hyperbolic language(e.g. rather than saying "I think fetal matter is life and aborting fetuses is like killing life!" they say "We are murdering innocents!" as if we were pulling children(rather than fetuses or embryonic cells) out of pre-school(rather than a uterus or freezer) and shooting them.

HUMANS have known that killing each other was not a good idea for THOUSANDS OF YEARS preceding the existence of catholicism so what is your point?!? You make it sound like we were popping out of the womb and stabbing one another because we did not know any better until someone invented Catholicism!?

You are way out in left-field now. The point is that, if ANYONE wants tax-exmpt status and to be recognized as a "charity" then they CANNOT simulataneously be doing non-charitable political activism(as the Catholic Church does) and have this fall under "charity work"(well, they can and do right now but they should not be able to).

So is broadband internet access if you want to selectively interpret the Bible in such a way.

Catholicism is the most inconsistent religious wackyness I have come across aside from a few UFO cults and whatnot but what does consistency have to do with it? Nazism is consistent but that does not earn it any brownie points in my book of morality.

You guys exalt a human being(several actually but chiefly the pope) above others, actively worshipping him(and before you deny this, I refer you to the behavior of millions of Catholics the last several weeks in particular. THAT is worship no matter what rationalization you come up with) and then offering (don't remember the latin but something like "Hosanna in Excelcius") "Jehova held highest". You go on about the sanctity of life and then take actions which directly contribute to the deaths of millions and millions of innocents (including children. Not fetuses, CHILDREN!) in 3rd world countries. You preach "thou shalt not steal" but when Mother Teresa is caught with stolen property in the amount of millions of dollars robbed from honest families in the 1980s S&L scandal and when Teresa is asked to return the stolen money, not only does she refuse but none of the "honest catholics" say a damn thing about it. She is made a saint.

And when it is revealed DECADES AGO that Catholic pirests have an alarming rate of commiting child-rape within the church walls and we bring this to the Church's attention what happens? It is swept under the rug, for decades virtually unknown accept to the families of the victims that the church is busilly paying off with thousands of dollars and the few who dared to investigate the untouchable church. Only when the problem has grown so large that it bursts forth out of the Catholic Church doors do we see some aknowledgement that wrongdoing has occured and STILL many try to blame the children/victims!

Yes, tell us about consistency won't you?

@Gnarlfinger

Yes, that makes sense...WHEN WE AKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS THE WORK OF MAN, SOLELY! When we try and assume that an all-knowing and all-benevolent God inspired this then it should not matter what the historical context is! God should have known that treating women as sexual slaves or genocide against people born under the wrong monarch was wrong at ANY time! God should have known that it is wrong to force people into slavery regardless of whether they are from "neighboring nations" or otherwise!

Then you have not read the Bible. God, Jesus, God's most loved followers etc. advocated hatred, wholesale slaughter and torment against people from other(non-jewish) cultures.

Just one example:

I do not care one iota how you try to rationalize such a thing. A loving God would find another way. An omnipotent God COULD find another way. An all-knowing God WOULD find another way(or being omniscient he would have no grounds to be setting men against their fathers in the first place!). THis isn't even the worst example by any stretch. If you tally up just the numers of killings attributed to God directly, alone for such crimes as being born in the wrong area and whatnot, God makes Hitler and Stalin look like Choir-boys! He condones or commands that virgins who are raped marry their rapists, babies heads be dashed upon rocks, children be mauled by she-bears for teasing one of his prophets etc. Things none of you Christians today would support(but go to bizarre lengths to rationalize away when it is pointed out in the Bible).

Again, you guys are going to have to join us in the 21st century sooner or later. This same defense was offered when you guys were preaching against interacial marriage, women being allowed to NOT marry and work to support themselves, that the sun revolved around a flat earth etc. and in each case, progress trumped your doctrines, so don't give me the "Our rules are inflexiable! We cannot do anything about it!" line. I don't buy it from the Islamic fundies and I don't buy it from YOU!

We ALL create our own morals and when those morals are based in rationality, we tend to find agreement(e.g. Don't kill each other. Don't steal. etc.), regardless of whether we be Christian, jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc.
Some of us go to great lengths to justify our personal morals as being "greater" than others by virtue of allegedly coming from some "God" being. Usually this sort of justification pops up when the morals themselves cannot stand on rational grounds(e.g. "Women shant wear skirts below the knees" or "Thou shalt not use contraceptives to protect from STDs!" etc.).
The problem is that ALL religion-derived morals which do not stand on rational grounds, be they "It is the greatest honor to God to martyr oneself in a suicide bombing!" or what have you, are justified by the same defense you offered above!
"What are we to do? Deny Allah his wishes? STop preaching what is plainly in the Quran?"

My answer is: No. Not through legal mandate anyway. But neither Islamic fundies nor the Catholic church should be granted tax-exempt status as if they were doing charity by preaching this stuff.

Wrong. It is like allowing you to teach a math class PROVIDED you are not teaching "Conservatives are all uneducated nazis!" as math! See my point? Anti-gay rights may well be part of your religion and yes you should have the right to preach that. But this is a religious/political opinion. NOT charity! And I should not have to fund your religious political opinions.

AGAIN, as two people have pointed out to you now, I NEVER said any such thing! As someone once said, I may disagree whole-heartedly with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it! I just do not accept you wrapping these opinions up as "religious charity" and claiming tax-exempt status to spout them.

What is the difference in the 2004 election if I endorse George Bush or simply speak out in support of every issue he is pushing and against every position Kerry takes?

Bull****. It is preaching your politics but trying to justify it as being a God-delivered doctrine. Do not insult my intelligence.

[ May 07, 2005, 13:19: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Would that be the passage in which the man pulls out of his (dead by God's hand) brother's wife, spills his seed on the ground, and then gets whacked by a lightning bolt from God? Or am I thinking of a different passage?

[/tangent]

 

No. And I NEVER said that it should. Please don't misrepresent my views, or put words in my mouth in the future.

[ May 08, 2005, 23:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

In the New Testament, there is a line that states:

If you love me, keep my commandments.

The people ordered to be slaughetered were so steeped in their abominations that they were pronounced enemies of God. If you support a leader's right to send his people to war to destroy the enemy nation, but not this, then you sir are a hypocrite. When the Lord's people went into an area, they were told to eliminate those who were there because they were enemies to the Lord's people and would seek to eliminate or subjugate them.

That is the Law of Moses. Old testament. When Moses went up to Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments, he came down to find the people worshipping a golden calf. At this point, the higher dorctine of the New Testament was deemed beyond the people. There fore they were given commandments. A caste of scribes and Pharisees arose to refine the law to clarify what you could and couldn't do. These people started to lose sight of the purpose of the law and made the law to suit their desires. They implanted the inheirent Misogyny and slavery into these laws. Rapists were sinners, and should, under the Law of Moses, been stoned, but this was lost to these interpreteers of the Law. When Jesus Christ came, it fulfilled the Lord's part of the Law of Moses, and set straight the things that the scribes and Pharisees screwed up.

Likewise, the traditional defenders of morality have made some errors (like the sun revolving around a flat earth, a lack of understanding of races), but on core morality (forbidance of sexual activity outside of legal and lawful marriage, forbiddance of homosexuality, forbiddance of abortion), there is no mistake.

But you are doing just that by claiming that Religeous organizations shouldn't have the right to speak. You disagree with them and don't accept their claims of divine authority, therefore, they should be silent on matters of politics...

They would have spoken out regardless of who took what position on any issues. John Kerry and the Democrats were the ones who took positions opposing the church on issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion. George W., or at least someone in his camp, was smart enough to champion church's position on these issues, thus gaining the support of the religeous right. John Kerry didn't lose because the Religeous right screwed him, he lost because he ignored the Religeous right. Until the Democrats figure this out, get used to Republicans in the White House...

The stance is clear that life begins at conception. That line doesn't seem to get the point across. People don't listen to rational arguements or simple, humble statements like "Life begins at conception", so they must resort to this Hyperbole to get their point across...

If Doctrine cannot be separated from politics, then you really can't have separation of church and state, then can you. But a word to the wise--if you start taxing religeons, then you are calling them out on the political battlefield. You think they're annoying when they fight for the souls of the people, just wait until you start making them pay taxes! They are accountable to the faithful for how those donations are spent. They would then be required to hold governments accountable for how that money is spent...

 

I don't think anyone of us is really trying to say that anyone should not have the right to speak. They have and should have a full right to express their opinions but they also should pay taxes. Personally I just feel that religion should not be involved in politics and find it unfortunate that religious groups use their freedom of speech to drive a political agenda and enforce their doctrines on others who are not members of that faith. I feel that it's just abuse of religious authoroty, perfectly legal yes but unethical non the less. It's a bit like neonazis. They have the right to speak but still a lot of the things they say would be better left unsaid.

I think you are very much overestimating the effect religion had on the presidental elections in the US. There were various other issues at stake you know. As far as I know the religious right has allways favored the republicans anyway and yet democrats have had several presidents in the past.

You really hit the nail with this statement and I perfectly agree with it. Religious doctrine should indeed be separated from politics.

Annoying? Well perhaps those groups that almost litterally try to shove religion down my throat and won't leave me alone on the streets of Helsinki are annoying but otherwise I have nothing against religious groups. Religions hold governments accountable for what? How the money they paid for tax is spent? Well maybe but not really more than any other groups or corporations. They don't really have a say how the money that they pay for tax is spent other than in elections where they are as allways free to vote for their Christian candidates.

 

OK, I'd like to comment more as an American, and a Christian, on this issue, rather than as an individual who can be more "worldly" in his viewpoint on religion and politics. So, I would ask your forebearance of me in a somewhat decidely Jeffersonian approach on the subject of religion and politics.

When Thomas Jefferson outlined his ideas on the separation of church and state, he meant just that. This is because Jefferson was preoccupied with the development of the individual. He meant that religious viewpoint was not shared among the community, but that every individual had to answer to his/her own conscience in such matters. This is why Jefferson described himself as a "religion of one." It was not because he detested religion but because the belief in God is a wholly personal experience. This is from his first inaugural address, a touchstone document for those of us who are Jeffersonians:

The thrust of his comment is political, but it rests on the notion of the religious wars and differences that divided Europe for several hundred years before the beginnings of the American Republic, and the stirrings of the Enligtenmnet which spread across Europe as well as in the years just preceding and during the American Revolution. This next line completes his statement:

And to complete his analogy he may well have said we are all Catholics, we are all Protestants. Or Jewish or Muslim for that matter. Jefferson is repulised by any ideology or dogma that divides us rather than unites us as a people.

Some have criticized Jefferson for being insincere in this comment - that he was really being political in his feelings in this famous part of his address. But those of us who have studied the man and his letters closely understand that this was the ideal that Jefferson envisioned for the new nation and that it is inseparable from the person who Jefferson was.

As in matters of politics, and religion, Jefferson was an idealist. He believed that great ideas would unite us. This is despite the fact that he created the first opposition party in America, and thereby creating the two party system that is still with us today. It is his legacy to be an oppositional figure on the American political stage, while at the same time being a strong advocate of a united America, that lacked political, religious and sectional differences:

He is saying that oppostion can exist IN UNION and still have a government that is representive of the people - a government in which all voices have a degree of say in the final outcome.

It all comes down to the individual. Jefferson would say that it is up to us as individuals to overcome our differences - in politics as well as religion. Like many of us, Jefferson was a deeply religious man. Yet, it was not a religion that had an "us against them" mentality, but one which empowered the individual to seek out his/her own destiny. Here:

Jefferson loved the word "felicity." It is what he meant in the theme that he began in the Declaration of Independence, in which he drafted the line, "the pursuit of happiness". He sought this with all his being in his later years. And it appears in many of his letters to his friends. And of course he shares a conservative viewpoint, with some others, that government should be both "frugal" in not taking overly large taxes, and should serve to protect the individual rather than direct his actions. This is the "sum of good government" in his opinion. Jefferson could be both liberal (democratic) and conservative at the same time (gasp!):

Overall, Jefferson does not mean that the state should be irrelgious, but to the contrary, it should be repectful of religion. But also always repectful of religious differences; "tolerant" of such differences. Thus, in the American experience, at least from a Jeffersonain point of view, religion and politics can be wholly compatible.

 

@Chandos:

Perhaps you are not suggesting the Church should change her beliefs on what's right but you are suggesting the Church should change her beliefs on what's tolerable and permissible. Like suggesting that the Church doesn't maybe have to believe abortion is right but she should believe that it's permissible, the individual concern of the mother etc etc. That's still saying what the Church should believe. Either this, or believe the same but stop acting in accordance with the belief. At any rate, if you believe I have misinterpreted you, go ahead and rectify the error. Most sincere apologies if I don't understand something in your views correctly, but spare the finger, please. I'm not your son.

@RuneQuester:

What you are doing is simply saying, "Your belief is wrong. Foeti aren't human beings and aren't innocent and aren't killed."

The Church, however, believes otherwise. She believes that foeti carry no innate responsibility for the wrongs done by their parents, let alone for the misfortunes that may possibly happen for them. There is no responsibility of the foetus for the mother's situation or the father's drives or anything.

Foeti are human as they grow into adult humans. They are separate beings from the mother or they would have the same DNA and blood group. They are being killed when their existence is being terminated, as to terminate the existence of a human being is to kill him.

Why "like"? Are you telling the Church what to believe? The Church believes the foeti are living human beings and terminating the existence of living human beings is called killing. Foeti are innocent unless there is hereditary or collective accountability.

You say, "as if we were pulling children rather than fetuses", but foeti are children. If to shoot or to abort chemically, the result is still death. I would prefer to be shot rather than gradually poisoned into cessation of living functions.

I don't understand what the point of your screaming is. If you could elaborate on the matter...

The world doesn't start and end on the US.

Here are the quotes:

Genesis 38:

6 And Juda took a wife for Her his firstborn, whose name was Thamar. 7 And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

Onan was slain because he used Thamar for his selfish pleasure alone, eliminating fruitfulness.

Numbers 12:

12 Let her not be as one dead, and as an abortive that is cast forth from the mother's womb. Lo, now one half of her flesh is consumed with the leprosy.

Quite clearly, being cast out of mother's womb is not something the Bible enjoys as a natural and plausible occurence.

Judges 13:

7 But he answered thus: Behold thou shalt conceive and bear a son: beware thou drink no wine, nor strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite of God from his infancy, from his mother's womb until the day of his death.

Humans are humans from conception to death.

Job 31:

15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him also: and did not one and the same form me in the womb?

He made me in the womb, well, this is quite direct, you know...

Psalms 21:

11 I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother's womb thou art my God,

My God already from my mother's womb. Humans are humans since their very conception, according to the Bible.

Same in 70:

6 By thee have I been confirmed from the womb: from my mother's womb thou art my protector. Of thee shall I continually sing:

Or 109:

3 With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.

Or 138:

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast protected me from my mother's womb.

From womb. Womb, I tell you. Womb. No 12th week. No 26th week in extreme case. No "unless conceived by rape or incest". Womb, just womb.

Wisdom 7:

1 I myself also am a mortal man, like all others, and of the race of him, that was first made of the earth, and in the womb of my mother I was fashioned to be flesh.

Ecclesiasticus 1:

16 The fear of the Lord Is the beginning of wisdom, and was created with the faithful in the womb, it walketh with chosen women, and is known with the just and faithful.

Isaias 44:

2 Thus saith the Lord that made and formed thee, thy helper from the womb: Fear not, O my servant Jacob, and thou most righteous whom I have chosen.

God's helper from the womb... was he so special that he became human before the 12th or 26th or whichever week?

Jeremias 1:

5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.

Again, this is pretty direct. "I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother"... So what, was Jeremias another special one, like Isaiah? Naah. I see a pattern here.

Osee 9:

11 As for Ephraim, their glory hath flown away like a bird from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

Luke 1:

15 For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Well, the Catholic Church was technically in existence, but this is the very beginning -- the Gospels.

Luke 2:

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.

Had Mary aborted, she would have aborted Jesus. But you can also abort John or Adam or Jane. The Noble winner, the president, the Pope, the aircraft engineer, the mailman, the janitor...

Here's some study:

http://www.catholicsource.net/abcbible.html

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

@chev - Amen.