General Discussion

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)

70. Actually

Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:18 AM

Aug 2014

People with disabilities often don't feel welcome in some Christian churches due to a long held beliefs that disability is punishment visited on the parents. Or that there is something inherently evil in people with disabilities (especially epilepsy and mental illness). And, they aren't always accessible.

Disability has been objectified in Christian churches for a very long time. People with disabilities "healed" by fraudulent preachers. Used opportunistically by the religious right to forward their abortion, end-of-life agendas. Used for fundraising, etc.

Obviously, there are churches that make an effort to welcome people with disabilities, so it isn't a blanket statement. However, the literal interpretations show either pity or images of a person who is possessed by demons. In fact, seizures are mentioned in the bible a number of times...

http://www.openbible.info/topics/epilepsy

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Truth About Down Syndrome (What Dawkins got wrong) [View all] loyalsister Aug 2014 OP

Like one of the mother's told me 15 years ago.."He'll be able to do anything but drive" Tikki Aug 2014 #1

I've known mostly adults with Down's. Warpy Aug 2014 #28

In all my years of working with clients with down's I have seen only one child that showed any signs jwirr Aug 2014 #36

People with disabilities were enlisted to be loyalsister Aug 2014 #63

Exactly. jwirr Aug 2014 #64

Fortunately for all of us, LiberalAndProud Aug 2014 #2

I really don't understand the controversy here, unless it's because Dawkins said it. arcane1 Aug 2014 #3

as a self-appointed moral authority loyalsister Aug 2014 #5

Thank you. n/t moriah Aug 2014 #6

It's merely his opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's. arcane1 Aug 2014 #7

And no one takes opinions of intellectuals seriously loyalsister Aug 2014 #9

Since this isn't his area of expertise, his opinion is no more relevant than his opinion of tv shows arcane1 Aug 2014 #12

He is not a "self-appointed moral authority". Iron Man Aug 2014 #10

He stated his opinion when someone specifically asked it gollygee Aug 2014 #33

Still, never mind eh? mr blur Aug 2014 #59

This is about making a value judgement that he thinks should be applied to others. If he wants to jwirr Aug 2014 #37

It's because Dawkins said it. Mariana Aug 2014 #60

As far as I know Christians do not single out a specific group they are talking about they disagree jwirr Aug 2014 #65

Actually loyalsister Aug 2014 #70

At least in my church there is no such bias and the use of seizures (which my daughter has) was jwirr Aug 2014 #74

Unfortunately there are still literal interpreters who don't see it that way loyalsister Aug 2014 #75

Of course there are. That is much the problem we are having in America today. The rw with their jwirr Aug 2014 #76

landover baptist is a parody site, not a real church independentpiney Aug 2014 #77

Sorry, I should have been more diligent loyalsister Aug 2014 #78

It has nothing to do with Dawkins loyalsister Aug 2014 #71

Fetuses aren't "people with disabilities". nt. Mariana Aug 2014 #72

The statement devalues existing people loyalsister Aug 2014 #73

Exactly. They lead happy lives. I wonder if Dawkins does? Maybe unhappy people applegrove Aug 2014 #4

That was the sentiment behind eugenics policies loyalsister Aug 2014 #8

Eugenics was about race. Iron Man Aug 2014 #11

It was also about disability loyalsister Aug 2014 #14

Thank you. Dawkins seems to be implying that the severely disabled are not as valuable Wella Aug 2014 #20

What if disability-related medical expenses are the reasons she can't afford it? arcane1 Aug 2014 #21

So you think it's a moral duty to abort the disabled? Wella Aug 2014 #22

Putting words in my mouth? Classy. You know I never even implied that. Nice try though. arcane1 Aug 2014 #23

Actually, I'm not. I'm trying to figure out where you stand on this morally Wella Aug 2014 #24

You missed an important phrase there: Iron Man Aug 2014 #55

Where I stand is an irrelevant distraction. arcane1 Aug 2014 #61

It doesn't matter. Iron Man Aug 2014 #54

What is it that you are arguing here? LisaL Aug 2014 #82

No. I pointing out that Dawkins thinks that aborting a Downs syndrome baby is a moral good Wella Sep 2014 #83

Choice goes two ways. jwirr Aug 2014 #40

We should be providing health care for all, so that shouldn't be a question. moriah Aug 2014 #66

It does have that ring loyalsister Aug 2014 #25

I like the way you said that Wella Aug 2014 #26

Eugenics was about a lot more than race. I suggest you read "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and jwirr Aug 2014 #39

:) Puzzledtraveller Aug 2014 #13

I fully support a woman's right to choose, just to be clear. And that means applegrove Aug 2014 #15

i agree Puzzledtraveller Aug 2014 #16

He merely gave an opinion when someone asked a question. Iron Man Aug 2014 #17

He wasn't chosing for other people. LisaL Aug 2014 #41

Is it a happy life PasadenaTrudy Aug 2014 #18

Do you know many parents who are raising or have raised children with DS loyalsister Aug 2014 #19

You can't really know that for sure, unless you're one of the parents ecstatic Aug 2014 #58

well I know many who are advocates for PWD loyalsister Aug 2014 #62

Ask them treestar Aug 2014 #56

why are people defending his opinion? Does he have a right to his opinion? Of course he does. liberal_at_heart Aug 2014 #27

I prefer disabled because it locates the condition more appropriately loyalsister Aug 2014 #32

It's named after some doctor named Down. SheilaT Aug 2014 #29

There are many issues that come with Down syndrome. LisaL Aug 2014 #30

And some go to college and start their own businesses loyalsister Aug 2014 #31

Maybe this will help loyalsister Aug 2014 #34

Men with Down syndrome are sterile, but large number of women with Down syndrome are fertile. LisaL Aug 2014 #38

Often is not the same as always loyalsister Aug 2014 #42

As far as I can tell, only LisaL Aug 2014 #43

Is this a problem that men with down syndrome are concerned about? loyalsister Aug 2014 #48

People without Down's also have these complications. jwirr Aug 2014 #44

Obviously not at the same rate. LisaL Aug 2014 #46

Yes I am aware of that - what I want to know is so what? We should abort then for these reasons? jwirr Aug 2014 #49

If a woman wants to have an abortion for whatever reason, she LisaL Aug 2014 #50

If you read the rest of my post you will see that is what I am saying. I see the devaluation of jwirr Aug 2014 #51

It should be woman's choice. LisaL Aug 2014 #52

Since we still cannot tell the level of functioning for Downs before birth are not one set of facts jwirr Aug 2014 #53

There is also this. LisaL Aug 2014 #47

I didn't know that. Wow. nt ecstatic Aug 2014 #57

So let's dismiss a huge segment of society mentalsolstice Aug 2014 #67

Fetuses aren't a segment of society. nt. Mariana Aug 2014 #68

Disabled people are a segment of society and unless you know some other way of becoming a person, liberal_at_heart Aug 2014 #69

Are you saying that disabled fetus should be afforded the same rights as a disabled person? LisaL Aug 2014 #81

It's up to one person: the mother. I don't consider it a "moral" issue. NYC Liberal Aug 2014 #35

Agreed. That is what those of us who are arguing against what he said are trying to say. jwirr Aug 2014 #45

my guess is that Dawkins resents the money being spent demigoddess Aug 2014 #79

People who resent the money being spent loyalsister Aug 2014 #80