Not really... what versions of Christianity have you learned this from? It must be some form of Protestant or Calvinist versions. — Agustino

Bingo. I was raised in, and pursued with Methodist diligence, a Protestant, Calvinist view of the world. Sometime around 35 years ago (at age 35) I decided to ditch my religious heritage. Easier said than done. It was like trying to make DOS look like a MAC operating system -- it didn't work. Calvinism is still operating underneath all the replacement systems. It could be worse.

Bertrand Russell noted that atheists generally bear the stamp of the religion they rejected. Seems to be true. Officially, I don't believe in original sin or the rest of it, but when I think about or discuss Christianity, it's the Calvinist view that comes to the fore. Yes, it feels a bit schizoid sometimes.

I agree. — Agustino

So, we can agree to agree.

Regarding failed states and collapsed societies and foreigners:

The Somali peoples have lived in the horn of Africa since ancient times. I don't know much about the place, but we have a lot of Somalis living in Minneapolis. They are most likely here to stay. They arrived with what seems like an intact culture. Their country of origin, however, is currently a mess. It's a failed state. A people can survive a failed state, and fairly severe disruption. Why has Somalia been disrupted in the 20th century? Ask the Italians, British, Russians, and Americans who have all taken a turn at screwing things up there. And ask the Somalis and Ethiopians too.

As for the Somalis, they tend to be about as insular as many of the non-Christian immigrant groups. Their second and third generations are English speakers, but are Moslems in the Land of German Lutherans and Catholics. Personally, I don't see any great advantage to this diversity -- its just a worse version of conservative theism, as far as I am concerned.

To be fair, the German Lutherans were once kind of insular and didn't speak English in their first and second generations either. Eventually they became the numerically and culturally dominant group, even more than Scandinavians.

Bingo. I was raised in, and pursued with Methodist diligence, a Protestant, Calvinist view of the world. Sometime around 35 years ago (at age 35) I decided to ditch my religious heritage. Easier said than done. It was like trying to make DOS look like a MAC operating system -- it didn't work. Calvinism is still operating underneath all the replacement systems. It could be worse.

Bertrand Russell noted that atheists generally bear the stamp of the religion they rejected. Seems to be true. Officially, I don't believe in original sin or the rest of it, but when I think about or discuss Christianity, it's the Calvinist view that comes to the fore. Yes, it feels a bit schizoid sometimes. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think it is good you have rationally abandoned the view (even though, it is understandable that some emotional intuition leftovers exist). I looked into it, but it doesn't make much sense to me. If people are inherently wretched by nature, regardless of what they do, then this ultimately acts to shift the blame from man to God, and thereby relieves the former of responsibility - by making wretchedness and sin a necessity. This ultimately defeats the purpose of religion, not to mention that it anthropomorphises God - believes that God can make inherently defective creatures.

The Somali peoples have lived in the horn of Africa since ancient times. I don't know much about the place, but we have a lot of Somalis living in Minneapolis. They are most likely here to stay. They arrived with what seems like an intact culture. Their country of origin, however, is currently a mess. It's a failed state. A people can survive a failed state, and fairly severe disruption. Why has Somalia been disrupted in the 20th century? Ask the Italians, British, Russians, and Americans who have all taken a turn at screwing things up there. And ask the Somalis and Ethiopians too.

As for the Somalis, they tend to be about as insular as many of the non-Christian immigrant groups. Their second and third generations are English speakers, but are Moslems in the Land of German Lutherans and Catholics. Personally, I don't see any great advantage to this diversity -- its just a worse version of conservative theism, as far as I am concerned.

To be fair, the German Lutherans were once kind of insular and didn't speak English in their first and second generations either. Eventually they became the numerically and culturally dominant group, even more than Scandinavians. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and such communities are indeed dangerous. It is many Muslim communities across Europe which are like these, esp. in France and Germany. Ultimately these cultures will never like each other. I have many Muslim friends, and they get along well with me, but with the rest of Western people they don't. They send their kids to school, and for example, their daughters get made fun of and peer pressured into wearing makeup, dressing loosely, etc. Their sons get made fun of for refusing to drink, or to date, etc. This makes them feel very alienated, and makes them try to organise into Muslim-only groups. And even when they don't get picked on directly, they feel isolated, because they see that they are different from everyone else around. Then they try to convert others to their religion slowly, those few who do come in contact with them. And to be honest, they can't really be blamed - if I was like them, I would do the same because obviously the culture here is oppressive to them. But the real problem is that we have organised society in such a way which permits these problems to happen. I think cultural considerations should go into the immigration process - not everyone should be allowed to immigrate to any country, because not anyone fits. First they must show that they can fit adapt, and integrate before they are allowed to move.

Why exactly does family planning, and preventive birth control drugs have to be linked with abortion? If these preventives worked we really wouldn't need any abortions. Most of the women getting abortions are not women who were raped either as thats a small satsitic so shouldnt we give more to prevention instead of treating the accidental pregnancy?

The reason that abortion, family planning, and birth control are linked together is that there are two underlying issues: One is the 'fetus fetish' which deems a fertilized egg a person from the moment of conception forward. The other issue is 'women's control over their own fertility'. Banning abortion, and making it difficult to obtain birth control or Plan B pills reduces the autonomy women have to make their own decisions about bearing children.

One could argue that the father should have some say in an abortion or the use of birth control or 'day after pill'. I think they probably should, in the case of a strong relationship between the two people producing the pregnancy. That said, the opinions of other males -- like a bishop, pope, mullah, potentate, enlightened passport, or what have you -- should not have any bearing on women terminating pregnancy. The same goes for other women: IF woman X wants to terminate a pregnancy, it's no business of other women.

again if birth control and preventive products were working to begin with you would not need an abortion. So why are we promoting something we know is apperently worthless to begin with under that idea? Also what if the dad wants the child and the mother aborts? How do we deal with that if its his sperm and her egg?

Here's a question about abortions and women's rights.

What if the majority of women didn't want abortion to be legal.

I personally know a woman that would refuse to have an abortion regardless of circumstances.

What if she were the majority?

Do I want abortion to be illegal? No.

But I'm a man, so it will never effect me unless I accidentally have a child, and even if I do I can't choose whether or not to have the baby.