Discussion If there was a religion that was actually pro-choice, or at least not fundamentally pro-life, would you follow it?

[TAW122]

This is an interesting question that I have entertained and although I am an atheist, here are my thoughts on this. First off, I don't think I would necessarily follow it or such, but I may adopt some of the values that said religion has assuming it aligns with my values and may also enhance my position and cause. Secondly, I certainly wouldn't oppose it the same way that most of us (as well as atheists outside of SaSu) oppose organized religion that is so prevalent in most of the world today, especially in various parts of the world including the US.

What do I mean by not following it, yet embracing it's values? What I mean by this is that I would certainly adopt it's values where I believe it may bolster my cause, but I certainly would not just blindly follow it nor treat it like it's an ultimate thing because that would just lead to the same problems that we are facing today with tribalism and other societal issues. I would also not entertain it's intertwining with politics and rule of law either because I believe in the separation of church and state, so I will be consistent on that front as well.

In the end, I believe that it is ultimately up to the person themselves to decide whether they want to adopt religious values (or even religion into their lives), and where I would draw the line is when said religion starts to interfere with another person's rights and liberties. I also would not wish for it to influence or even overtake the rule of law or any secular institution for the problems that it would cause. I believe that this is the fairest to all parties, as the so called religion would not infringe on others' personal freedoms, civil liberties, and rights, but yet at the same time be beneficial to those who embrace, follow, or practice it. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Timothy7dff]

I don't know of any major religion that even addresses abortion. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Christian bible. Murder is designated as a sin, but it's a question of when life begins.
I don't believe buddhism addresses abortion. You could make assumptions based on other tenents, but it's not like Buddhism preaches "thou shall not get abortions".

 

[Nuance]

It's paradoxical. Religion, and by extension, cults, always want to get more people. Having your devout followers kill each other, kill themselves or kill their own offspring would never help to further your interest.

Still, the most popular religions offer hope and salvation. Either eternal, or accepting and being content with reality while living; sometimes even both.
Many people would equate death as a thought as a cause for despair and death as an action to end despair.

Technically, all religions that are born as the antithesis to preexisting religions, or new ones that may form to parody to mock them, are subject to forming a decent amount of followers that may share the traits you describe...

So people will follow it, but it will be fleeting.

Would I follow it? Just like any other religion, no.

 

[davidtorez]

If death wasn't a thing religion wouldn't be either

 

[Praestat_Mori]

To follow a religion one would need to believe in it deeply. Just bc a religion has a pro-choice element does not necessarily mean that I would believe in all that is expected from the followers of that religion.

I would probably adapt things I like and that benefit me in my life but I doubt I would join/follow the religion. I'm not religious.

 

[pyx]

Buddhism is probably the closest thing to a pro-choice religion, or at least not a pro-life one (idk if the latter entails the former)

 

[BlockHammer]

Tbh, i don't really care about religion that much as long as it's teaching are peaceful and don't have those destructive mindset. My problem with religion isn't with the religion itself, but with it's follower, i guarenteed you that those folower (especially the toxic one) would turn this peacful religion into this kind of cult.

As for this type of religion you said, well i'm not really intrested in doing that cause my belief about euthanasia are came from observing someone life and mine without using any of religious dogma/mindset. Im a muslim and i still believe that euthanasia/abortion is a valid choice, although it should've been the last option that you should take or you sure that this baby would be suffering if the baby have some sort of disability

 

[sancta-simplicitas]

I don't follow because my default setting is critical. Even if there was a religion perfectly tailored to me, I probably wouldn't be able to follow it.

 

[Pluto]

 

[sugarb]

This is an interesting question that I have entertained and although I am an atheist, here are my thoughts on this. First off, I don't think I would necessarily follow it or such, but I may adopt some of the values that said religion has assuming it aligns with my values and may also enhance my position and cause. Secondly, I certainly wouldn't oppose it the same way that most of us (as well as atheists outside of SaSu) oppose organized religion that is so prevalent in most of the world today, especially in various parts of the world including the US.

What do I mean by not following it, yet embracing it's values? What I mean by this is that I would certainly adopt it's values where I believe it may bolster my cause, but I certainly would not just blindly follow it nor treat it like it's an ultimate thing because that would just lead to the same problems that we are facing today with tribalism and other societal issues. I would also not entertain it's intertwining with politics and rule of law either because I believe in the separation of church and state, so I will be consistent on that front as well.

In the end, I believe that it is ultimately up to the person themselves to decide whether they want to adopt religious values (or even religion into their lives), and where I would draw the line is when said religion starts to interfere with another person's rights and liberties. I also would not wish for it to influence or even overtake the rule of law or any secular institution for the problems that it would cause. I believe that this is the fairest to all parties, as the so called religion would not infringe on others' personal freedoms, civil liberties, and rights, but yet at the same time be beneficial to those who embrace, follow, or practice it. What are your thoughts on this?

Unless they're offering CTB assistance- zero reason to convert.

 

[redeeming_butterfly]

The more interesting question for me is, does this imaginary religion have a pastor who offers people a clean and peaceful Blood Choke? If so, I'm in and believe in all the potential dogma this religion conveys without even reading it.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I will only join a cult or religion if they offer cyanide in Kool aid or Nembutal drinks. But I'll never believe in any thing supernatural. I'll never surrender to anything nor anyone.I'll always believe a human is just cells just a machine who thinks it's you, machines = cells .

 

[Not A Fan]

I have a hard time conceiving of genuine belief as a choice whatsoever. It's not something you can consciously decide to do, or not do. Otherwise it wouldn't really be belief, just posturing. I'm 100% open to the fact that I might be wrong (agnostic). But my sense of doubt is an innate feeling that is not subject to my will.

 

[davidtorez]

I have a hard time conceiving of genuine belief as a choice whatsoever. It's not something you can consciously decide to do, or not do. Otherwise it wouldn't really be belief, just posturing. I'm 100% open to the fact that I might be wrong (agnostic). But my sense of doubt is an innate feeling that is not subject to my will.

I agree with you and there's also a whole branch of philosophy that deals with belief, ie doxastic voluntarism and doxastic involuntarism. It's quite interesting

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I live my life with so-called "religious" values. I don't steal, cheat, murder, malign others, lie, etc, etc, etc. Yet, I am an atheist. I don't think being a decent person has anything to do with religion. I know the difference between right and wrong, so why not just do right and be good? It's a human thing, not a religious one, to treat each other with respect and kindness. I don't need religion to "show" me the way. It wouldn't matter if the religion was pro-choice. I simply don't need it.

 

[deadalready1]

I live my life with so-called "religious" values. I don't steal, cheat, murder, malign others, lie, etc, etc, etc. Yet, I am an atheist. I don't think being a decent person has anything to do with religion. I know the difference between right and wrong, so why not just do right and be good? It's a human thing, not a religious one, to treat each other with respect and kindness. I don't need religion to "show" me the way. It wouldn't matter if the religion was pro-choice. I simply don't need it.

I agree, we don't need religion to have morals.

 

[Not A Fan]

I agree with you and there's also a whole branch of philosophy that deals with belief, ie doxastic voluntarism and doxastic involuntarism. It's quite interesting

Thanks for the tip, it's a subject I think about a lot but I have never heard those terms. Will definitely look it up.

 

[Qimaster]

Definitely would. Most answers here takes into account if the religion is morally compatible to them or if the beliefs would make sense to them.

If you guys understood the politics of religion, a "pro choice" religion will offer easily accesible and even legal ways to perform self euthanasia. Even amidst the current society.

There are so many either unethical or completely non sensical things that are normalized in society in the name of religion. People of other religions are likely to respect it even if they dont believe in it personally or understand it. Because you are not supposed to comment on other people's religions.

This is a phenomena that's already happening. I say we cash in on it and we all together start a religion that is pro choice when it comes to the right to die.

Besides, a religion that is pro choice is also likely to be open minded in its other beliefs and practices.

Based on responses from the "non believers", convincing this society of our rights will probably take centuries and we would have all suffered and died horribly by then.

 

[the_last_race]

No, i wouldn't. Religion is nothing but self-inflicted delusion that tries to sugarcoat the fact that nothing has any meaning whatsoever. Why would i care about religion stance on suicide if i don't believe in everything else?

People of other religions are likely to respect it

Not they're not. You talking as if religion based bigotry and xenophobia doesn't exist.

If people don't respect and accept the idea of suicide as a whole - they sure won't respect it turned into a religion. And THIS is a phenomenon that alredy happening. People calling this site a "death cult". Imagine if the cult part turns out to be real and there is a religion that allows suicide - more fuel to the fearmongering.

 

[jbear824]

No because religion inherently needs you to abandon logic and reason. Because those things show that religion is bogus. It's just a way to control people.

 

[Ash’Girl]

There are religions/faiths that are essentially pro choice. They're just not modern.

Although there are probably more branches of pagan faiths than our body has veins and arteries, there isn't this "suicide stigma".

Modern religion was crafted to further the agendas of power hungry men. Control the masses. Incite wars to divide and conquer.

And make people behave however they wanted them to for fear of otherwise burning in a fiery pit for eternity.

 

[ARW3N]

I don't know how many people here know how Gandhi once declared a fast unto death as a penance for the communal riots and as a means to restore lasting peace in the hearts of Hindus and Muslims. Interestingly enough, Gandhi was actually adhering to the tenets of Jainism.

Known as sallekhana in Jainism, it is the religious practice of voluntarily fasting to death by gradually reducing the intake of food and liquids. It is viewed in Jainism as the thinning of human passions and the body, and another means of destroying rebirth-influencing karma by withdrawing all physical and mental activities. Sallekhana is a vow available to both Jain ascetics and householders. Historic evidence such as nishidhi engravings suggest sallekhana was observed by both men and women, including queens, in Jain history.

There is debate about the practice from a right to life vs right to die and a freedom of religion viewpoint. In 2015, the Rajasthan High Court banned the practice, considering it suicide. In 2016, the Supreme Court of India stayed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and lifted the ban on sallekhana.