Biblical Birth Control: The Surprisingly Contraception-Friendly Old Testament

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/biblical-birth-control-surprisingly-contraception-friendly-old-testament



When the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases about the conflict between new healthcare mandates and religion, it sparked a heated conversation on the religious rights of for-profit corporations.

In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the Court will decide whether these corporations can refuse to cover as part of their employee health care plans certain types of contraception, which they allege prevent fertilized eggs from implanting and therefore object to on religious grounds.

As many have already argued, we should not have to live our lives according to certain groups’ interpretations of religious laws. But as a student of ancient religious texts – I run a secular Jewish house of study for culture-makers in New York – I take real issue with these groups’ reading of the Bible, too.

The Old Testament, despite some believers’ insistence to the contrary, does not take a hard line against contraception or abortion. The Bible and the 24 other books that make up the Jewish canon make both direct references and thinly veiled allusions to women using contraception.

[CJCRANE]

1. I'm amazed at how long we've allowed these so-called (RW) christians to make stuff up

about the book (the Bible) and the person (Jesus) they profess to follow.

It's amazing what you can get away with if you say something in a confident and aggressive tone.

In reality, they follow Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

(Of course I don't care what they follow, but let's at least have some "truth in advertising&quot .

[trotsky]

2. So if someone says something you don't like, that means they're not a Christian?

Is that how it works?

I've seen liberal believers assert, quite confidently and aggressively, that Jesus endorses same-sex marriage, despite there being nothing in the bible to back that up. How would that be different?

[CJCRANE]

3. It's religion. There are different interpretations. No one has a monopoly on it.

Jesus had a lot to say on loving thy neighbor.

I'm sure there is more stuff in the Bible to back a liberal point of view in particular and in general.

However, I don't claim to have the whole truth, and hence I believe neither do the RWers.

[trotsky]

4. You are correct, no one has a monopoly on telling us what the bible says.

Or what point of view it supports. So you shouldn't be doing that.

[CJCRANE]

5. Freedom of speech means the freedom to disagree. I disagree with the RWers' interpretation.

They are free to say what they believe and I am free to say what I believe.

I won't cede the ground to them. I have as much right to my opinion as they do.

[trotsky]

6. No one has said you aren't free to voice your opinion.

However when you criticize another group for having a false interpretation, and say that no one can state they know for sure what the bible says, yet then turn around and insist that you can, well you might see why that could cause some confusion.

[CJCRANE]

7. Good try but I never said that I know for sure what it says or means.

There is no confusion.

Let's start from the beginning.

There is a collection of texts called the Bible.

Different people have different opinions about it.

They voice their opinions.

Other people are free to agree or disagree with those opinions.

[trotsky]

8. What you said (in post #3) was:

I'm sure there is more stuff in the Bible to back a liberal point of view in particular and in general.

Are you now claiming you're not sure? That your earlier statement was wrong?

[CJCRANE]

9. You're going round in circles. I have an opinion so of course I think I'm correct.

I base my opinion in this case on the contents of the Bible and associated studies.

Of course I think my opinion is correct. That is why I espouse it. If the person who disagrees with me thinks otherwise then that's fine. If they have evidence that contradicts my opinion they are free to present it.

My main point at the beginning was that conservative and RW Christian claims on the Bible should be challenged. They do not have a monopoly on the Bible. I want people to see that there are many different interpretations. They can then make up their own minds based on as much information as possible, not just some close-minded TV pastor/pundit/personality.

[trotsky]

10. I'm "going round in circles" simply because I pointed out how you contradicted yourself?

You said you were *sure* (you used that exact word) about what the bible said. Then you said no one can be sure.

Now you also claim that if someone disagrees with you, that's fine. But in your initial post you claimed the right wingers who disagree with you must be followers of Ayn Rand. (I.e., they must be atheists because they're so evil?)

Just trying to follow your logic here, that's all.

[CJCRANE]

11. I'm discussing things in an informal manner, you in a legalistic manner.

I have an opinion about the Bible. My opinion is based on textual information. I'm not claiming that I have the 100% whole truth and everyone is else 100% is wrong. It's just an opinion.

My aim is not to push my opinion but to push the fact there are many opinions, many interpretations of the Bible. The MSM gives a lot of air-time to RW Christians which gives the impression that theirs is the predominant opinion. I would like the MSM to give air-time to people with lots of different opinions and interpretations to show that it isn't.

[trotsky]

12. I think it's beneficial for all involved to use language precisely. Don't you?

Confusion over terminology is often a major reason for disagreement.

You seem to be all over the place on this topic, initially willing to condemn and judge others for their interpretation on one hand, but then backing off when confronted about that kind of fundamentalist-like behavior and agreeing that no one knows for sure.

Now you seem to be going off on a tangent about media coverage. Just trying to follow along at this point, I guess.

[CJCRANE]

13. I merely clarified my viewpoint

as usually happens in a discussion.

My initial post was not a legally binding statement that covered all eventualities and nuances of my opinion.

I didn't "condemn" anyone. I have repeatedly said that everyone is entitled to their point of view and I am entitled to disagree with them.

What is your opinion of the conservative christian interpretation of the Bible? Is it a valid viewpoint?

[trotsky]

14. You started by claiming that RWers didn't follow the bible at all,

that they made up everything they claimed was from the bible, and actually followed Ayn Rand. You've backed off considerably from that initial claim, so that's good.

Personally, I don't find any interpretation of the bible to be consistent. The book is so full of contradictions, every person who claims to follow it must necessarily ignore parts.

But is the conservative viewpoint valid? Sure - just as valid as the liberal one, FWIW.

[CJCRANE]

15. Well, obviously it was a generalization

but in general I don't think they follow it for the most part. I've never heard a conservative quote the Sermon on the Mount or most of the sayings of Jesus or any of the sayings in the Bible about helping the needy.

And surveys have shown that many religious people do not have a good knowledge of the Bible and attribute quotes to it which are actually libertarian in origin.

I understand your point of view that the Bible is inconsistent. But where I differ with you is that I think it's useful to engage conservatives on that turf because 9 times out of time 10 they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm a liberal/progressive/LWer first and foremost and my study of religion has shown me that there's generally more back up for liberal points of view.

BTW I didn't say that I follow the Bible. There are large sections of the Bible, Koran, Torah etc. that back up my point of view as a liberal, and which can be used to show RW believers that God doesn't agree with everything they say. A lot of the stuff that RWers say and do is wrong according to their holy books and I'm happy to point that out.

And I do think that for many conservative christians swapping Atlas Shrugged for the Bible, and Ayn Rand for Jesus, would be more intellectually honest.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. There is no Biblical basis for being anti-choice either, you rarely hear right wing Christians...

talk about that.