pregnancy loss may or may not be hard on a woman's body, it depends. seven uncomplicated abortions should not hurt you though, although i am not sure about the repeated hormonal ups and downs. but yeah, we either need to leave it up to the woman or we need to look very very carefully on what lines we draw, and where, and for whom, and why. and i am pretty sure the legal limit in the US is 24 weeks, which is the end of the second trimester. i don't think you can get an elective abortion in the US after that.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

Yes, I think you are right on the 24 weeks and elective abortion not being legal beyond that. Is it that a woman can have an abortion beyond that if there is definitive problem with the fetus?

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

you just have to hang out and give birth after that point, unless you are in an emergency situation and the doctor thinks it is baby or you.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

so the question for me becomes, why the fuck are you standing outside this clinic judging the fuck outta them?

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

cause i am not sure i have much left...

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

what better proof of the hypocrisy and narcissism of their beliefs than the inability to stand by them to the logical end? i am as liberal as they get and if a person is convicted of murder, even i think they may require more of a punishment than counseling. unless i am well paid to do that counseling in prison. har har.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

but it is christian. it is king james bible christ the lord and savior christian. no two ways about it. i know that there are those, like you, that take the follower of christ label and tweak it and turn it around to be peaceful and accepting of all people. but that to me is like spinning white power into racial pride. it just doesn't wash. religion, and christianity in particular, is responsible for more pain, group and individual, than any other force on the earth. if it helps you, that is fine. but it doesn't make it harmless and good.
and i am not trying to be a pain in the ass, but there is no talking (in a neutral and rational way)to zealots, whether you keep a verbal peacefulness or not. they are insane and it is hateful to stand outside a clinic and judge people using your religion as justification. and when that religion officially commiserates on paper, i think the hatefulness extends to it.
i am trying to fuel the fire. i think that these people need to be stopped. not by removing their right to protest, but by asking them hard questions that they can't answer and shaming them off the curb and back into the churches where they can pray, but not cause pain.
but i understand that you don't agree.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

But didn't want to find an noninflammatory way of putting it.
I also have to throw in that extremism is all the same in my view. Extreme Republican/Democrat, Extreme christian/atheist, they all say the same things with different fill in the blank answers. The majority of people are moderates and wish everyone would calm down enough to stop the mudslinging.

We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.~K.V.

but saying something people don't want to hear is not necessarily mudslinging. and the polls and votes do not concur that most people are moderates. most people right now are actually conservative and pretty fundamentalist.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

I do think we need to be vocal in our beliefs. I am just usually stuck on figuring out who is "right" (I have come to my own conclusion that none of us are).
Maybe you believe polls, but there is no statistic in this universe that can't be twisted to fit the right vision. If polls were true, Bush wouldn't be president, and it has been seven long years...

I think most people are lazy and stupid, if that translates to conservative and fundamentalist then we agree on that.

We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.~K.V.

i don't believe any of us are right, but i guess i am a hypocrite, cause i do think some of us are wrong...like the lazy, stupid people that elected him, and the asshole himself, and yes, i think that there is an environment now that conservative=good and right, and liberal=amoral and bad, and that is a stupid and lazy assumption that most people are making.
and i don't want to believe polls, they scare me.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

*amen* or er.. whatever

Zealotry and extremism is arrogant at best, dangerous at worse. Either way, not my thing. That is why I would never consider myself an atheist and am far from religious. To me, it is reasonable and smart to see both sides of the coin without residing in either one. It doesn't mean I am lacking in opinions and convictions, it just means that my opinions don't always walk the black and white, right or wrong, good or bad, terms.

Anyway, thanx punkmama for sharing this clip.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

just maybe more decisive.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

For me, yeah, it is an extreme position to take on whether or not a "god(s)" exists, but for you, I understand that it is not.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

so everybody in the world who is not agnostic is extreme? now that is a leap.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

I have stepped away from the computer and thought about it a little more... I do get pretty turned off when I hear people discussing God in either position - devoted believer who thinks I'm going to hell, or Atheist who thinks everyone else who believes in God is brainwashed (or something kin to that description - insert negative opinion of the "believers").

Those are extreme positions to take, IMO. Being in the position of not believing in god, but having genuine (key word) respect for the millions of people who chose to believe in god - that is a sentiment that doesn't make me throw up a wall. Believing in god but respecting my lack of faith or another's total disbelief, that I can be around.

It is when a person has the idea that everyone should see things "my way" regardless of which way they swing and for what-ever reasons they believe other's "should" - that is too dogmatic of a position for me to respect. Don't shove your religion in my face, don't shove your absolute knowledge of the absence of god in my face.

The word "you" is a blanket word - not thinking of you personally as I type this.

Afterthought...

Now religion... that is a whole other thing. When it comes to organized religion... I don't like where it has been historically or where it is currently in the history of humans - for all the reasons Etta and you bring up... most religion is toxic and demented in some form or another. Obviously, people can pick and choose the terms in which they function within their religion (often not toxic at all) however, as a whole body of power in our culture and others… TOXIC.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

and as such is toxic in my book. completely. and picking and choosing tenets of a religion is, to me, a sign of not knowing who you really are. just my opinion, also, but i don't think there is anything wrong with not knowing who you really are unless you refuse to admit it, then it is unhealthy. at the point of the path that i am on, i know myself well enough to know i am an atheist, that i have never, ever seen anything positive come out of any religion, and that i have no need to push and pull and tweak and manipulate any set of ideas to fit me. i am. that is it. i am not shoving my absolute knowledge that there is no god in your face. please! and i do NOT respect, genuinely or otherwise, people who have beliefs that cause others pain. i respect their right to do it, but i do not respect their beliefs. if you believe in god, great. if you worship the seasons and the earth, fine. but if you are religious, no. no respect from me. not for your beliefs. or, probably, for you.
and i am also using the editorial "you".

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

Right on. We are all entitled to our own lines of thinking.

And, yes, I am well aware that Christianity is a religion. I don't believe I suggested otherwise. And yes, I also believe that Christianity as a religion is toxic. However, I do give leeway for the individual experience within Christianity (and within other religions) that may be helpful and nontoxic to that particular person.

Anyway, I get your POV and get why you are so strong in your position. Ain't nothing wrong with having a strong opinion, that's for sure! I feel as strongly about my position. As for arguing what "extreme" is, that is also subjective.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

Um, no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that FOR ME it would be an extreme position to take. I am not comfortable with the either/or of whether or not god exists which is why I am comfortable saying, "I just don't know." I don't need to chose a position in order to feel decisive on this issue. My decisive answer is that I just don't know.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

i don't think being sure of your decision is extreme. your decision is not to decide, and you are sure of it. see what i mean? i am sure about my decision not to believe in supernatural beings, not to follow dogma, and not to tell others what to do. this makes me an atheist, and i have several philosophies with which i can identify...buddhism, existentialism, postmodernism. these things resonate for me, and they are full of individual responsibility, to oneself and others, and i call them home.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

and only because I think it is equally arrogant to assume there is a God as to assume there isn't. It defines reality, closed case, everything in it's proper place.
Who the hell are we, a few steps from apes, to understand the universe we live in either way?

We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.~K.V.

I am of your mindset, Createss, with one difference... I think it takes both "types" of activists to make change. It takes the brainy, calm, involved on the inside, logical, radical thinking, passive and peaceful type.

And then it also takes the other side, who may on some level admire or even carry some of the above qualities (and of-course, visa/versa)... but also likes cracking skulls, burning buildings, making examples with words and sometimes force.

I think it helps to have both elements in a revolution of change. Yes, my IDEAL would be the former, because that is where I stand, but really, it takes all kinds on the same side.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

The most passionate and adamant non-violent activist I know is the least passive person I can imagine. He takes no shit from anybody. But he's not going to get in your face and intimidate you, because he fully believes in non-violence. He is going to rationally and intelligently point out to you why the act was wrong and what would have been appropriate. And if it is "passive" to stand in front of a tank and give the only thing you have (your life) to make a statement against its destruction, I'd rather be labeled as passive.

The only value I see in the violent, destructive, theatrical protest actions of, say, Greenpeace is that they are notable and they do get people's attention. Doesn't change people's minds, but it at least gets people's attention.

I mentioned each quality as separate qualities that one may or may not have. I wasn't equating non-violent with passive or any other of those qualities with one another.

Instead of "peaceful type" I should have said, "peaceful types." I dunno, maybe that difference would have registered as what I was meaning to say.

A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song. - Chinese Proverb

and i used to as well, but i no longer feel this way. sure, it sets a nice example to be an unfailing voice of verbal peace, but it doesn't confront the violence. and it needs confronting. thinking people do go out of their way to keep an open mind, and not just to set an example, but because they abhor the black and white thinking of religiosiy and it conflicts with their notion of civilized discourse. i get that. but christainity is evil. it really really is. it really created this shit, and it really is vile and abhorant. it really exists to enslave people and keep poor people poor, to keep women opressed, to keep an endless cycle of war after war so the few can horde all of the resources and keep the poor people too scared to just take the shit. fucking abortion protesters is but one expression of how religion works its evil in the richest nation on earth. so, i disagree on being unfailingly peaceful in a war zone. nice idea, but fuck that. it's too important not to speak out and call that shit what it is when you see it.

"All persons, whether living or dead, are entirely coincidental." Kurt Vonnegut

Casting forth vitriolic verbiage is totally different from the powerful, spiritual, soul-moving discourse that was spoken by, for instance, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, one of the best examples of non-violent movement leadership. He effectively criticized the behaviours and policies that were keeping his people in societal chains and killing them as effectively as slavery did, but I have never seen a case in which he displayed a failure to love his persecutors as fellow people created by God.

that is fine for him, fine for ghandi. i am not a leader of a movement, i am one person. it's not my responsibility to adopt the persona of a world leader who changed history just to state an opinion. if i were speaking to masses of people and trying to affect a change in the world, you bet i would be much more mindful of the way my voice carries and is heard by thousands or millions of people. but i'm not, i am simply a mother of a child who was forced to participate in christain prayer in a public school. i'm just one person who is routinely ignored because it's somehow not valid to not accept any bible based belief system.

i will suggest now taht the vitriol you speak of is in your mind. i have none. i am simply and casually stating it as i see it. it's your intolerance that reads hate into what you hear from me. truthfully, there is no acceptable way to phrase what i really think about religion, that would be ok with you to hear. you'd always read the vitriol, because that hate is in you, for someone who rejects what you believe in.

"All persons, whether living or dead, are entirely coincidental." Kurt Vonnegut

creatress, i know etta, and she NOR i have any vitriol at all about this.really! this is totally "read" by you, and others, who for some reason find atheism vitriolic and extreme and seething with hate. maybe it is your prior experience, but it is totally not true here. i don't hate anybody. i just don't believe in god, and i think that dogmatic faith is harmful. i think cholesterol is harmful too, and alcohol, and public school. but i am not marching up and down in front of mcdonalds, or the package store, or schools. and most importantly, i am not marching up and down outside of a church or christian school with a big poster of a drug addicted teenager that says, "are you sure you can raise that baby properly? consider abortion before it is too late!" with a pamphlet from my clinic. that is the difference. i do not presume that anybody should make their behavioral choices line up with my beliefs to the degree that i would protest and tell them that they are going to be punished. that they will live with regret forever. that they are wrong.
although you may be able to tell that i sometimes fantasize about it.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

I just wanted to add to this thread as an Athiest that I am not full of hatred for Christians or anybody else. I am very weary of intolerance. I am weary that my faith, and that's what Athiesm is to me, simply the faith that god doesn't exist is always blown up to be arrogant and cocky. We all believe things, right? Maybe we believe we can wake up with the alarm clock tomorrow. We may be wrong, but we believe it. It doesn't strike me as full of hate or arrogant to have a belief. It's just a weird position to be in in a Christian-focused society. An Athiest grows up seeing that most everybody else believes in god. So, they ask themself "Do I believe in god?" and they find they believe there isn't one. So when someone asks them what religion they are they respond "Athiest". And the other person gets all put out, like, how can an Athiest be so cocky as to have that belief? So everybody else gets to have beliefs, but not Athiests? I get this impression from the world surprisingly often.

***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***

and that is such a good way of putting it. if we are not willing to concede that there might be a god, we are arrogant and hateful, but if a christian won't concede that there might NOT be a god, they are stalwart in their faith. yet another negative message sent out about atheism. and thanks for chiming in!

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

But you're not just saying that there might not be a god. What I think people are taking issue with is that you say Christianity=Evil. period. I don't entirely disagree with you. I f**king hate most religions. But I can also see that there are good aspects to religion and there are a lot of good religious people. I do not think being a Christian is a pass to get away with ANYTHING, especially not intolerance. Whenever I hear a politician say that the U.S. is a Christian nation I want to scream because the very nature of this country is against such a statement. Freedom of religion should be tantamount to almost anything else. But just like you don't want people to attack you for your athiest beliefs I don't think people should be attacked for their religious beliefs- whatever they may be. Also, I think something like "christianity" is too broad a term- it encompasses much too wide a range to lump them all in as the same. Look, I know Christians are in the majority. I'm under no illusions that they need anyone sticking up for their rights, but by the same notion just because they're in the majority doesn't make it cool to discriminate against them.
And finally, I am probably just totally talking out of my ass because while I do have friends who are religious- I have excluded people who describe themselves as "christian" from roommate or friend searches.

stating it without apology is read as arrogant. and when you support it, you are irrational and/or crazy. now this can be an entire new blog. how people just think it's so nutty not to accept a belief system that everyone else does. everyone else is doing it!

i love that image of running up to pregnant women and begging them to consider abortion... i picture it with all the tears and dramatics of the anti abortion zealots. "PLEASE! PLEASE kill your baby!"

"All persons, whether living or dead, are entirely coincidental." Kurt Vonnegut

And it is how people follow it (or don't follow it, or outright abuse it as I would argue these protesters do) that can be evil. Christianity itself is not evil, the same way Republicanism, as a belief system, is totally harmless as long as no one follows it. And, come to think of it, Republicanism CAN be followed intelligently, but it doesn't generally promote as much compassion as Democratism (as opposed to democracy, totally different thing.)

And I'm really, honestly offended at your fanatic categorization of all of Christianity as evil. Christian denominations may have hurt you--they've hurt me, too. But there is a much broader spectrum of Christians than what I think you're focusing on. Christians who focus on the biblical force for peace and justice that Christ really was do not do the evil things these abortion protesters do.

people kill people.

christianity does't kill people. christians kill people.

i don't believe i am focusing on a small group of people here. i am stating simply that the belief system is inherantly evil. which, by the way, is a pun, because as an atheist i don't accept that tehre is such a thing. and by christianity i do mean all of it, not just the most overtly hateful ones.

"All persons, whether living or dead, are entirely coincidental." Kurt Vonnegut

What is inherrently evil about the belief system? I am not a Christian and I'm the first person to speak up about the f**ked up nature of many, if not most, of the Christian religions but I would not say it's inherently evil. If you look at Christ himself and what he stood for: forgiveness, helping people, accepting everyone, including (one might even say especially) the biggest outcasts of society. He preached non-violence and love of your fellow humans. People take that and twist it around, but that- above all else- was the basic message. I think that SOME forms of Christianity honor that. I mean, I think it's totally wrong that a lot of Christians denounce homosexuality. But, I know some Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong, but are friends and quite accepting of gay people. I also know Christians who are pro-life, but who would never protest at an abortion clinic or even judge someone who had, had an abortion. They just believe it's wrong- THEY wouldn't do it, but they understand and accept that other people don't adhere to the same beliefs.
Are some forms of Christianity evil? Probably.
But just because you disagree with something- even if you think it is messed up- doesn't mean that it's evil. That's the same line of thinking that Christian and other faiths use to make blanket statements like that Atheists or Atheism is evil.

and i agree that christianity is evil, because that love, non-violence, all that? that is not christianity. that is common to every religion on earth. like etta said, philosophy means nothing without somebody to pick it up and act on it. and people that live by the values of christianity are judgemental by their own dogma, there is a right and a wrong, there are scriptures and commandments and rules that state very clearly what is right and wrong. and to me that is awful. so i don't practice it. and i keep my distance from those who do. that is my prergative, as it is all of ours to make choices.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

You're right- the love, non-violence thing is common to most religions. But I will not jump to say that Christianity is inherrently evil. Because there is not just ONE Christian religion- there are too many to even name. And just having rules for right and wrong doesn't automatically mean that you pass judgment on other people- kwim? Like, I think that spanking is wrong- I won't do it to my child, but I have friends who spank their kids and it's not up to me to judge them. I believe it's wrong to cheat on your significant other, but I know people who cheat all the time. It's not up to me to judge them either. There ARE christians who feel this way. Who look at the rules of their faith as rules they choose to follow without passing judgment on those who don't follow all the same rules.
That being said, I don't think anyone's trying to convince you or Etta to befriend Christians. I completely understand why you would be reluctant to do so. I just don't think it's fair to make the blanket statement that Christianity is evil by default.

and i don't think there is anything wrong with it, necessarily. when i choose to give my son juice and my sister chooses not to give her daughter juice, we each make that choice because we have decided...judged...our choice to be better. isn't that so? does that mean i am judging my sister or she is judging me? probably not. but we made different choices for different reasons. and we each decided our way was better, and to go with that.
let me make this clear...i define evil as causing harm. and i think christianity causes great harm in so many ways i can't even begin to list them here. so that is where i make that jump, which to me isn't much of a jump. and people who just live their lives by their own moral and ethical code and don't judge others...well i don't think that person exists really, including myself.
i don't feel like people are trying to convince me to befriend christians, i simply feel that this society tolerates incredible amounts of evil shit as long as it is hiding behind a cross.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

"i simply feel that this society tolerates incredible amounts of evil shit as long as it is hiding behind a cross."
I agree with you there! And yes, Christianity, as a whole, does cause harm. I don't even really have a problem with saying that the organized religions that fall under Christianity are evil. For the most part, they are. My problem is with taking that a step further and condemning the followers of those religions. I mean, you could argue that if an organization causes harm then any followers of that organization are complicit in the harm, but when it comes to religion it's a lot more complicated than that. That's part of why religion is so dangerous- it brainwashes people. I mean, what is a more powerful motivator than the threat of eternal damnation or, conversely, the promise of salvation? It's some scary shit. And many if not most religious people were born into it and brought up being fed this stuff. So, if you've been taught from birth that this is God and this is what he wants you to do- how do you counteract that? I know a lot of Christians who are awesome people. Many of whom live at odds with the rules of their faith, but they adhere to other aspects of the faith because it has been a part of them all their lives. I guess I was making the leap to thinking that you were saying that not only Christianity, but Christians are inherrently evil. And that is what I don't think is fair.
On judgment- I guess it depends on how you define it. Of course in every choice we make we decide what we deem to be the better option. So sure, you could say that you've made a judgment that one thing is better than another. But when I talk about judging other people I think of it as making a character assesment based on a particular action or actions. Like assuming, or implying, that someone is a bad or lesser person because they've done something you don't agree with.

for me, living in the US, this is the stick in my craw on a daily basis. if i grew up elsewhere, maybe hiding behind the crescent would irritate me more because it impacts my life more.

no one seems to get the fact that i called it evil as a joke. as in, that is what they call us for not agreeing with them and having the gall to live our lives according to our own policies. it's not ironic at all that this is what is so offensive, being that evil is an imaginary concept based on who goes to h-e-double hockey stick. i also actually said that IT is evil, not the followers. and IT really does cause harm, and anyone who donates money to IT is complicit, anyone who follows the rules to belong, as is anyone who cherry picks the tenets they accept and turns a blind eye to the rest.

furthermore, there is this assumption that civilized people do not question the beliefs of others. yet we tolerate it from christians. because christians aren't expected to be civilized? but atheists have a tendancy to bend over backwards to be "tolerant" of other people's beliefs, almost as an example of how we ought to treat one another, and i wonder.... why? do they do the same for us? hell the fuck no. look at the threads right here on HM, where the most liberal and accepting of christians participate, and see the ourright dismissals and hatred spewed at us, for simply saying "i object." showing exponentially more respect than we are ever given, and still they shit on it. why? because it is tolerated, it's allowed. for them. and these are your best and brightest.

so, as to the people who follow, it's kind of yes and no. if god gave you your brain, fucking use it already. if christianity teaches you to be tolerant, then be fucking tolerant. if it teaches you to be kind and not steal and gives you solace in difficult times, let it, but also remember the people who were tortured and murdered and gassed for it, remember the whole countries that were stolen, because if you take the institution, you take the whole fucking thing. it may make a christian feel better to focus only on what they believe is "christ's message," but the reality is that you represent all of it, not just the touchy feely lovey dovey parts, but all of it. if you participate in it, you endorse it. all of it.

"All persons, whether living or dead, are entirely coincidental." Kurt Vonnegut

exactly, exactly. christians who take the universal message of love and peace and co-opt it, as if christ, if he even existed, invented the concepts, as if the only way the world can be peaceful and loving is by believing in christianity, anyway, christians who take that and dismiss the rest as if it doesn't exist are the epitome of ignorance and narcissism. it is like joining the KKK and saying, well, i totally disagree with their opinions on blacks and jews, i am just down with getting all these mexicans out of the country. but i am not racist. if you belong to a racist organization that espouses racist beliefs, yes, yes you are. and if you call yourself a christian but you only like the new testament, or the hippy lovey UU version of it, or some new age version of it, then you are living in a lie. that is my opinion. claim it, or drop it. that is my opinion on that. i would never belong, in name or any other way, to a group that was as hate filled as christianity, even though i am sure there are decent people who do so. decent, but asleep.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

and i don't think all christians are evil, i don't think i ever said that. i do think christianity is evil, and i do think most christians are evil. because i think hate is evil, and modern, established christianity is all about hate. the only love there is self love, and hatred of all who are not like them. and i agree, a lot of people are knee-jerk christians, too brainwashed by the notions of hell and sin to ever renounce their faith in it, even when the organization rejects them. and that isn't evil, but it isn't healthy and i think it is something to be overcome, like any other debris from childhood that makes you feel badly now.
so, if it isn't fair or just of me to think that the institution of christianity is evil and horrible, and that most of its adherents are judgmental, unhappy and emotionally unhealthy people, then i can take that judgment.

"If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime."-Jack Kerouac

I also know Christians who are pro-life, but who would never protest at an abortion clinic or even judge someone who had, had an abortion. They just believe it's wrong- THEY wouldn't do it, but they understand and accept that other people don't adhere to the same beliefs.

What you're describing here is a pro-choice position, not a pro-life one.

*Edit to add:* I'm always annoyed how the prolifers make it seem that pro-choice is the absolute opposite of pro-life - like you only have the choice to either support arborting all babies or to work against it. There seems to be no middle ground, when in fact pro-choice actually IS the middle ground.

And regarding the homosexuality example, some churches in a few denominations (usually MCC, UCC, and the UUs that identify as Christian) actually believe homosexuality is a totally normal and healthy manifestation of humans' divinely created sexual nature. Otherwise, I'd have probably had to leave Christianity entirely.