Travolta, Scientology, medicine, religion and all that.
So I signed onto AOL to see one of the headliners of the AOL News to be, once again, about Jett Travolta's death. However, this time, it was about how Miss Presley decided to get in on the action and defend Scientology, I had no problem with this, what bothered me was that it was brought up at all. Of course, like any article, it had many a reply from various people just slinging insults at religion, at the Presleys, at the Travolta family, etc... But I felt I wanted to say something this time...
In case you don't know what was going on, long story short, John Travolta's son, Jett, died. Children, especially when raised by wealthy caucasian families who have health insurance, and ESPECIALLY when they have media attention and fame, don't usually just kick the bucket. (I'm not trying to sound crass but, I'm summing it up). Needless to say, the situation drew attention and the major question on the news is: Did scientology play a role in the child's death? If you're wondering how, well, remember Tom Cruise's lecture about medication? Yah......
Now, I don't know much about scientology, But I did have this to say, after I show you my comment, I shall link anyone who's still curious to a few articles, in case snooping through a star's personal life, beliefs, morals, daily life, and trajedies is indeed how you like to spend your time. (Yes I clickedo n the links, but I was curious to see what people said in response, sadly, my expectations were met)
My response:
Now, I wanted to comment a few things in HERE that I'm not willing to do on THERE, because I do not feel that picking a fight with people over an AOL message board is worth it...At all. I do not know the person, and depending on what they say I don't necessarily have to value their opinion. I value almost everyone's opinions on just about anything, but when people simply say "fuck you" or "you're stupid", they are not offering an opinion, they're also not offering one when they throw insults back and forth. Now, when it comes to different religions, they span all over the map in all sorts of crazy directions, but at the core, they all tend to say "be nice" "treat others the way you would like to be treated" "This is correct go teach it to those who are misinformed or unaware" (it's ironic that they all say that), and the fact is that not all religions have been aroudn at the same time. The first sign of worship that we truely have record of as the first sort of organized faith, was Sun Worship. Now, I'm not going to go into what that was/is and all that, but its basically at the foundation of any and all other beliefs of their being something else , some greater being in control and such. If you want to get more earthy/pagan then there's beliefs in more than one God, or Spirits, of Mother Earth, Father sun or moon, etc...
So really, could someone come up with their own religion without even claiming a being to worship? Yes. Entirely. Religion is supposed to be about guiding beliefs and morals and decisions to better onesself and the world, and having hope. To have a belief in something more powerful than onesself, however, both inspires hope of something more, more possibilities, trust, less insecurity, someone to blame and love, a reason to unexplainable things, and can also be manipulated to rule through fear, when the interpretatoin or responsibility of anything having to do with that belief is given to an individual for others to follow. Following a faith, is not the same as following a human being, who is easily corruptable, or held by their own personal beliefs and morals, and as it tends to be today not open to discussion.
Now, when it comes to everyone believing something different, here's a perfect example. I hope this person doesn't mind me copying and pasting their comment, but seeing as it spreads their link, I doubt they will. Anyways,
AZSUMMER2003 said: You are right. No one has the right to tell any person what to believe in. My story is interesting in that I have always believed in an "Energy" spirit that is within all of us. WHat happens to us after we die, I do not know. What I DO know though is the heartache the Travolta's are experiencing - my 17 year old son died also from a freak accident. Weirder still is that I Had a vision of him begging me for help (Mom! Mom! I need to know how to do CPR!) at the EXACT moment he died. Also, we knew he was going to die - he said to many things that day for it to be chance. Read the entire incrediable story at my son's website, then please light a candle to show you have visited. The first few pages will totally blow you away. It's loaded with videos, music, links, support group info, pictures, so many things. Definately a very well done site. it's: www.TaylorBurgstahler.memory-of.com
I in no way doubt being able to "know" when someone will die, people get feelings, see signs, all the time. The fact is no one WANTS someone they know, or themselves, to die, so they ignore them, say they're being supersticious or silly, but afterwards look back and go well shit I was right. We are sensative to situations when we are open to them, as well to the feelings of others, it's not being psychic or religion, it's human. Although yes, sometimes people ARE just paranoid. I myself have not clicked that link, seeing how I am writing in this journal entry, and I may never click it, I do not know.
Back to the whole Jett/sceintology thing, it begs the quesiton of what is Scientology's written view on modern medicine? Every religion updates itself with doctrines and the like, where they try and answer questions to todays life dilemmas morally, based on the religions original standing points, and then people are able to interpret, accept or deny them for themselves as they choose. At least that's the option here, where the Travolta's live.
Well this is what some people said about Scientology on the comments;
AGUYMAGIC said : Let's look at SCIENTOLOGY... LOL - What a bunch of BS! I was approached several times by scientologists who attempted to start brainwashing me within 10 minutes. It's CRAP people! Science-fiction BS at it's worst! Look into it if you want a good laugh. I really think the 'scientology' history (L. Ron Hubbard - history too) would make a GREAT comedy!Death of Travola is tragic. To list "seizure" as the cause of death is even more tragic. Medically speaking, it's UNHEARD of!If this wasn't the son of a celebrity, John Travolta and wife would be getting arrested for neglect and endangering the welfare of a child! ENOUGH of the star treatment! They want to preach THEIR views on politics and religion and current affairs all the time, but when the tables turn, they get special exemptions? BS to that! Life is precious! If the Travoltas believe so strongly in their "religion" then they shouldn't cry. They'll meet up on a spaceship sometime in another galaxy... yeah, right.
I only give this man credit in that in the mix of negativity he makes his point about hte situation. About scientology however, it makes you wonder what ARE the roots? Well before I get to what started scientology, lets see what some other people said about scientology/its views on medicine/origination:
TTiben said: have nothing but sympathy for the Travolta's and their loss. Nothing is more painful than the loss of a child.Scientology however is a false religion/cult started by a mediocre at best Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in order to create personal tax free wealth for himself. He based it on the idea that space aliens inhabit your soul. I am not kidding it really is. The more money you spend for cleansing the more alien spirits are removed from your soul. If some of the other beliefs lead to Jets passing that is ashame. I still doesn't take away the pain of losing a child no matter what.
GerriHan65 said: I have to admit that i thought scientologists were against medication in all circumstances (guess i should have known better than listening to Tom Cruise), but I never wavered in my sympathy for the Travoltas. Now that it's been established that Jett was in fact on Depakote for his seizures (and Depakote is about as hardcore as anticonvulsants get, which I know from personal experience) people need to back off on the scientology angle and let this poor family get on with the business of mourning their son and sending him into the next life. He can rest now, which i hope is some comfort to the family@@@@Jett was on Depakote, but not at the time of his death. The Travoltas decided to take him off of the medication when they were told that it might cause liver damage.
cAmber10244 said: To everyone making judgement on this family that just lost their son, I don't know how you can be so evil. Only the family knows and needs to know all the details, why do we deserve to know such personal details? Because they are celebrities? Get over yourself! To all who blame Scientology, you have no idea what you are even talking about. If you think you are a good Christian because you believe in Christ then leave the judging to him! Pray for those in need, don't attack them!
I have to say that cAmber makes a good point in that no group that preaches peace, acceptance, and understanding should attack another, verbally or otherwise. Questioning, learning, discussing, those are one thing, but the thread as a whole was disturbing in that no one did that... No one wanted to know what was true, they simply jumped on what was given or what little they had heard and used what may very well be incorrect to formulate strong opinions, emotions, and attack the beliefs of others who were posting.
The fact is that people don't bother to become informed....So I'm going to do that now, probably in a seperate post, but maybe in this one since Livejournal has royally skrewed me on this post and jumbled everything up in placement, font, size, and even deleted part of what i wrote...dammit...
OKAY , for the part that got lost, which i'm furious about to some extent, I mentioned how any religoin when you boil it down to the basics looks pretty crazy. That faith doesn't mean following something exactly or literally, that a search for truth and interpreting things for oneself is truely faith. I said that there is a huuuge difference between blindly following something, and making it your own. Simply taking what one is told to believe and not looking for what YOU believe to be true through your own search for truth, to me, is foolish. No human is perfect, so no humans understanding or idea or interpretation or feeling or belief is necessarily right. Maybe everyone's is meant to be their own personal faith. Either way, to never look and to blindly follow is simply irresponsible and easy unless in a situation where it is the only option for you know nothing else exits really. I cannot say what is or is not true, but I can say that most people, unless completely ruled by fear in some way, will go to extreme lengths to save the life of their child or loved one. And as for medicine and morals, morals are NOT religion. Every religion offers guidlines yes, but what religion has focused on the issues of today? Most religions were well before the medical technology that exists today, had even been concieved. Yes, religion banned many a medicinal treatment way back when, but for the most part, the medicinal treatments back then did more harm than good. Morals, are different with every person, and no one religion has a set of morals. Beliefs and morals often come into conflict. You may believe that if someone is dying, it is simply their time to go, but when your child has cancer, and is dying, but can stop dying by having a tumor removed, what do you do? Okay, most people question quality of life. In any situation where someone can be kept alive, but cannot live their life, a debate ensues.
We ALL remember Terry Shaivo. Sorry if I spelt that incorrectly. Being kept alive in a vegetative state is complicated... Is that person still concious? Are they still aware of their surroundings, situation, themselves, their life, their family, past, everything? Are they still feeling, thinking, seeing, hearing? They cannot respond to show us, and if the case were that no, the person is not truely alive, but is perhaps still feeling pain, but cannot have proper brain function, will never again be able to walk, move, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom, write, or process information or think, then isn't it just cruel? Howeverin a case like Terry, no one was sure as to what her state really was. I mean, imagine the horror of being trapped within yourself, you could never again move or communicate or express yourself in any way, but to be thinking the whole time, and ot be aware of everything. Human nature is surprising, usually you'd think that if you had the full thought function a person would come up with some sort of way of showing it, whether it be a random noise, jerk, blink, anything. And that is why they do the best they can to find ways to see if people in such states are indeed trying to do so, however, when a person simply doesn't wake up, but is still breathing... How do you know? Where does life end?
Religion, gives guidlines, but when it gets personal, people formulate their own beliefs, morals, and more situation-based scenarios for themselves.
I mean, people who are Pro-Life will still say that although THEY are pro-life, it is not their job to tell soemone else what to do with their body. That the situation can change if that child would be born, to only live two years, or to live, but with such devastating damage that they could never truely function or experience the world. Some people say yes to life for that, for it'd be all they'd know, so yes they would be happy, others say no, to birth someone into such pain is horrible. What if someone were to be born only to have to experience physical pain for the rest of their life, with a severely shortened life expectancy? Is choosing to not let that life begin killing or saving? Is it self preservation out of some selfish desire to not have to go through that oneself, or is it selfless, putting oneself through the knowledge of the act for the sake of that unborn? Does the time period make the difference between saving and killing? Should the time period and developement dictate a decision between abort or adopt or have? I have never spoken to a person who has had a child and said "well it was because my religion told me I had to at that point", no , it's their own personal decision, their morals may have been shaped or directed through a surrounding or being raised with such beliefs, but everyone is still aware, and when in that situation, considers ALL the options, and today, the weight of "oh the church will condemn me" is rare to find. The fact is, that no one KNOWS, people just feel differently, and often peopel act against their beliefs, or even against their morals. Some morals are different than that same person's beliefs, depending on the situation. Some people believe in abortion and not adoption. Some people believe in only keeping children, and never putting them up for adoption. Some people believe in not adopting, even if you cannot have your own children. Some people don't believe in marriage unless procreation is guaranteed. Some people believe that their race is superior. Beliefs are all over the scale, and morals are not the same. If morals and religoin went so hand in hand, then an atheist would be without morals, but this is not the case. Every person has their own stance on what is right, or what is wrong.
HOLY CRAP I AM PISSED! I had SO MUCH MORE written here, I've been writing for HOURS about this now and not only did this all come out NOT in the order I put it in, but even MORE of it got lost along the way. HOW?? I don't know. Stupid livejournal can't handle long entries apparently!!! Also, it ranodmly bolded and unbolded thigns that III did not. UGH
In case you don't know what was going on, long story short, John Travolta's son, Jett, died. Children, especially when raised by wealthy caucasian families who have health insurance, and ESPECIALLY when they have media attention and fame, don't usually just kick the bucket. (I'm not trying to sound crass but, I'm summing it up). Needless to say, the situation drew attention and the major question on the news is: Did scientology play a role in the child's death? If you're wondering how, well, remember Tom Cruise's lecture about medication? Yah......
Now, I don't know much about scientology, But I did have this to say, after I show you my comment, I shall link anyone who's still curious to a few articles, in case snooping through a star's personal life, beliefs, morals, daily life, and trajedies is indeed how you like to spend your time. (Yes I clickedo n the links, but I was curious to see what people said in response, sadly, my expectations were met)
My response:
- Ooookay, all I have to say here is that this is being discussed as if Scientology is the only religion to make statements about healing in their own ways and beliefs and not through traditional medicine. Yes, healthcare these days in the U.S. is pretty skrewed up, rushed, and on the edge, but compared to most of the world, if you're able to recieve the healthcare, as long as you stay informed and aware, it is a great and wonderful thing. Many many religions however claim their own healing power, as to what is true and what is not, I cannot say, however I do know that when it comes to a child's life, a parent will do whatever they can. No matter how many people follow a faith strictly and literally without deviation based on their own personal beliefs and interpretations, very few people will follow anything or anyone to the point where a loved one dies when they have the option to do something else about it.
- Fear, however, is a very powerful motivator, if someone was raised so strictly and without hte knowledge of anything else, it is entirely understandable that they would refuse something like a hospital, thinking it would result in worse than the current situation, however, for the travolta's, this was not the case. Scientology for them is recent, and whehter or not they believe in the medicinal views, whether or not htey had good or bad hospital and health care experiences as children themselves, as parents, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't do everything possible for their child. Granted, humans surprise each other every day in selfish-ness, greed, and other excessive ways, so who knows, maybe they weren't aware of the severity, maybe their beliefs got in the way, the fact is , even if it did, what is anyone going to do? Many a religion states that current medicine, in some situations is wrong. And yes, soemtimes there should be a line...
- (part of what I said got cut off, since this was split between three comment boxes and apparently my second post was too long, so I don't remember what I said about a line, so here's the rest of what I said after that:) actually this makes me REALLY pissed off because I said a HUGE thing right here, i'll minorly adress it later now I suppose.
- Fighting a religion, will not work, not even one like Scientology, I mean, every relgion when you go down to the basics sounds crazy, but not everyone believes in every aspect of their faith. Faith is a belief that people make their own, to follow anything blindly and without knowledge or a search for truth, or to just accept something as truth without looking for yourself is foolish. Either way, all this media attention does nothing other than cause ancient debates, narrowed biased views on people, beliefs and situations, and cause more pain for the family. Looking at peoples lives through a microscope is not what we should be doing, I'd say I as well as everyone should probbly look at our own. Granted, a controversy is great to discuss, yes I clicked on this link too, I wanted to see what crazy things the media were saying again today. The media thrives on manipulation, word play, fear, and little truth. All you get is the here-and-now, and none of the information or background to make a real decision. Ugh. The fact is that in almost every/any given situation, people want to blame a religion or science.
Now, I wanted to comment a few things in HERE that I'm not willing to do on THERE, because I do not feel that picking a fight with people over an AOL message board is worth it...At all. I do not know the person, and depending on what they say I don't necessarily have to value their opinion. I value almost everyone's opinions on just about anything, but when people simply say "fuck you" or "you're stupid", they are not offering an opinion, they're also not offering one when they throw insults back and forth. Now, when it comes to different religions, they span all over the map in all sorts of crazy directions, but at the core, they all tend to say "be nice" "treat others the way you would like to be treated" "This is correct go teach it to those who are misinformed or unaware" (it's ironic that they all say that), and the fact is that not all religions have been aroudn at the same time. The first sign of worship that we truely have record of as the first sort of organized faith, was Sun Worship. Now, I'm not going to go into what that was/is and all that, but its basically at the foundation of any and all other beliefs of their being something else , some greater being in control and such. If you want to get more earthy/pagan then there's beliefs in more than one God, or Spirits, of Mother Earth, Father sun or moon, etc...
So really, could someone come up with their own religion without even claiming a being to worship? Yes. Entirely. Religion is supposed to be about guiding beliefs and morals and decisions to better onesself and the world, and having hope. To have a belief in something more powerful than onesself, however, both inspires hope of something more, more possibilities, trust, less insecurity, someone to blame and love, a reason to unexplainable things, and can also be manipulated to rule through fear, when the interpretatoin or responsibility of anything having to do with that belief is given to an individual for others to follow. Following a faith, is not the same as following a human being, who is easily corruptable, or held by their own personal beliefs and morals, and as it tends to be today not open to discussion.
Now, when it comes to everyone believing something different, here's a perfect example. I hope this person doesn't mind me copying and pasting their comment, but seeing as it spreads their link, I doubt they will. Anyways,
AZSUMMER2003 said: You are right. No one has the right to tell any person what to believe in. My story is interesting in that I have always believed in an "Energy" spirit that is within all of us. WHat happens to us after we die, I do not know. What I DO know though is the heartache the Travolta's are experiencing - my 17 year old son died also from a freak accident. Weirder still is that I Had a vision of him begging me for help (Mom! Mom! I need to know how to do CPR!) at the EXACT moment he died. Also, we knew he was going to die - he said to many things that day for it to be chance. Read the entire incrediable story at my son's website, then please light a candle to show you have visited. The first few pages will totally blow you away. It's loaded with videos, music, links, support group info, pictures, so many things. Definately a very well done site. it's: www.TaylorBurgstahler.memory-of.com
I in no way doubt being able to "know" when someone will die, people get feelings, see signs, all the time. The fact is no one WANTS someone they know, or themselves, to die, so they ignore them, say they're being supersticious or silly, but afterwards look back and go well shit I was right. We are sensative to situations when we are open to them, as well to the feelings of others, it's not being psychic or religion, it's human. Although yes, sometimes people ARE just paranoid. I myself have not clicked that link, seeing how I am writing in this journal entry, and I may never click it, I do not know.
Back to the whole Jett/sceintology thing, it begs the quesiton of what is Scientology's written view on modern medicine? Every religion updates itself with doctrines and the like, where they try and answer questions to todays life dilemmas morally, based on the religions original standing points, and then people are able to interpret, accept or deny them for themselves as they choose. At least that's the option here, where the Travolta's live.
Well this is what some people said about Scientology on the comments;
AGUYMAGIC said : Let's look at SCIENTOLOGY... LOL - What a bunch of BS! I was approached several times by scientologists who attempted to start brainwashing me within 10 minutes. It's CRAP people! Science-fiction BS at it's worst! Look into it if you want a good laugh. I really think the 'scientology' history (L. Ron Hubbard - history too) would make a GREAT comedy!Death of Travola is tragic. To list "seizure" as the cause of death is even more tragic. Medically speaking, it's UNHEARD of!If this wasn't the son of a celebrity, John Travolta and wife would be getting arrested for neglect and endangering the welfare of a child! ENOUGH of the star treatment! They want to preach THEIR views on politics and religion and current affairs all the time, but when the tables turn, they get special exemptions? BS to that! Life is precious! If the Travoltas believe so strongly in their "religion" then they shouldn't cry. They'll meet up on a spaceship sometime in another galaxy... yeah, right.
I only give this man credit in that in the mix of negativity he makes his point about hte situation. About scientology however, it makes you wonder what ARE the roots? Well before I get to what started scientology, lets see what some other people said about scientology/its views on medicine/origination:
TTiben said: have nothing but sympathy for the Travolta's and their loss. Nothing is more painful than the loss of a child.Scientology however is a false religion/cult started by a mediocre at best Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in order to create personal tax free wealth for himself. He based it on the idea that space aliens inhabit your soul. I am not kidding it really is. The more money you spend for cleansing the more alien spirits are removed from your soul. If some of the other beliefs lead to Jets passing that is ashame. I still doesn't take away the pain of losing a child no matter what.
GerriHan65 said: I have to admit that i thought scientologists were against medication in all circumstances (guess i should have known better than listening to Tom Cruise), but I never wavered in my sympathy for the Travoltas. Now that it's been established that Jett was in fact on Depakote for his seizures (and Depakote is about as hardcore as anticonvulsants get, which I know from personal experience) people need to back off on the scientology angle and let this poor family get on with the business of mourning their son and sending him into the next life. He can rest now, which i hope is some comfort to the family@@@@Jett was on Depakote, but not at the time of his death. The Travoltas decided to take him off of the medication when they were told that it might cause liver damage.
cAmber10244 said: To everyone making judgement on this family that just lost their son, I don't know how you can be so evil. Only the family knows and needs to know all the details, why do we deserve to know such personal details? Because they are celebrities? Get over yourself! To all who blame Scientology, you have no idea what you are even talking about. If you think you are a good Christian because you believe in Christ then leave the judging to him! Pray for those in need, don't attack them!
I have to say that cAmber makes a good point in that no group that preaches peace, acceptance, and understanding should attack another, verbally or otherwise. Questioning, learning, discussing, those are one thing, but the thread as a whole was disturbing in that no one did that... No one wanted to know what was true, they simply jumped on what was given or what little they had heard and used what may very well be incorrect to formulate strong opinions, emotions, and attack the beliefs of others who were posting.
The fact is that people don't bother to become informed....So I'm going to do that now, probably in a seperate post, but maybe in this one since Livejournal has royally skrewed me on this post and jumbled everything up in placement, font, size, and even deleted part of what i wrote...dammit...
OKAY , for the part that got lost, which i'm furious about to some extent, I mentioned how any religoin when you boil it down to the basics looks pretty crazy. That faith doesn't mean following something exactly or literally, that a search for truth and interpreting things for oneself is truely faith. I said that there is a huuuge difference between blindly following something, and making it your own. Simply taking what one is told to believe and not looking for what YOU believe to be true through your own search for truth, to me, is foolish. No human is perfect, so no humans understanding or idea or interpretation or feeling or belief is necessarily right. Maybe everyone's is meant to be their own personal faith. Either way, to never look and to blindly follow is simply irresponsible and easy unless in a situation where it is the only option for you know nothing else exits really. I cannot say what is or is not true, but I can say that most people, unless completely ruled by fear in some way, will go to extreme lengths to save the life of their child or loved one. And as for medicine and morals, morals are NOT religion. Every religion offers guidlines yes, but what religion has focused on the issues of today? Most religions were well before the medical technology that exists today, had even been concieved. Yes, religion banned many a medicinal treatment way back when, but for the most part, the medicinal treatments back then did more harm than good. Morals, are different with every person, and no one religion has a set of morals. Beliefs and morals often come into conflict. You may believe that if someone is dying, it is simply their time to go, but when your child has cancer, and is dying, but can stop dying by having a tumor removed, what do you do? Okay, most people question quality of life. In any situation where someone can be kept alive, but cannot live their life, a debate ensues.
We ALL remember Terry Shaivo. Sorry if I spelt that incorrectly. Being kept alive in a vegetative state is complicated... Is that person still concious? Are they still aware of their surroundings, situation, themselves, their life, their family, past, everything? Are they still feeling, thinking, seeing, hearing? They cannot respond to show us, and if the case were that no, the person is not truely alive, but is perhaps still feeling pain, but cannot have proper brain function, will never again be able to walk, move, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom, write, or process information or think, then isn't it just cruel? Howeverin a case like Terry, no one was sure as to what her state really was. I mean, imagine the horror of being trapped within yourself, you could never again move or communicate or express yourself in any way, but to be thinking the whole time, and ot be aware of everything. Human nature is surprising, usually you'd think that if you had the full thought function a person would come up with some sort of way of showing it, whether it be a random noise, jerk, blink, anything. And that is why they do the best they can to find ways to see if people in such states are indeed trying to do so, however, when a person simply doesn't wake up, but is still breathing... How do you know? Where does life end?
Religion, gives guidlines, but when it gets personal, people formulate their own beliefs, morals, and more situation-based scenarios for themselves.
I mean, people who are Pro-Life will still say that although THEY are pro-life, it is not their job to tell soemone else what to do with their body. That the situation can change if that child would be born, to only live two years, or to live, but with such devastating damage that they could never truely function or experience the world. Some people say yes to life for that, for it'd be all they'd know, so yes they would be happy, others say no, to birth someone into such pain is horrible. What if someone were to be born only to have to experience physical pain for the rest of their life, with a severely shortened life expectancy? Is choosing to not let that life begin killing or saving? Is it self preservation out of some selfish desire to not have to go through that oneself, or is it selfless, putting oneself through the knowledge of the act for the sake of that unborn? Does the time period make the difference between saving and killing? Should the time period and developement dictate a decision between abort or adopt or have? I have never spoken to a person who has had a child and said "well it was because my religion told me I had to at that point", no , it's their own personal decision, their morals may have been shaped or directed through a surrounding or being raised with such beliefs, but everyone is still aware, and when in that situation, considers ALL the options, and today, the weight of "oh the church will condemn me" is rare to find. The fact is, that no one KNOWS, people just feel differently, and often peopel act against their beliefs, or even against their morals. Some morals are different than that same person's beliefs, depending on the situation. Some people believe in abortion and not adoption. Some people believe in only keeping children, and never putting them up for adoption. Some people believe in not adopting, even if you cannot have your own children. Some people don't believe in marriage unless procreation is guaranteed. Some people believe that their race is superior. Beliefs are all over the scale, and morals are not the same. If morals and religoin went so hand in hand, then an atheist would be without morals, but this is not the case. Every person has their own stance on what is right, or what is wrong.
HOLY CRAP I AM PISSED! I had SO MUCH MORE written here, I've been writing for HOURS about this now and not only did this all come out NOT in the order I put it in, but even MORE of it got lost along the way. HOW?? I don't know. Stupid livejournal can't handle long entries apparently!!! Also, it ranodmly bolded and unbolded thigns that III did not. UGH