The biggest threat to religious freedom in the world is obviously the Zionist world conspiracy. It's not the Christians, Muslims, or the atheists, but the Jews we have to watch out for.
In all seriousness, I think ascribing one solitary ideology to the global demise of religious freedom is unrealistic. It varies region to region. In some nations renouncing Islam is a death sentence, while in others speaking critically of Christianity is a pretty good way of getting a fat lip.
How about in the United States? What is the biggest threat here in our own nation? Well, I'm not quite sure. Atheistic communism is just silly and radical Islam is only a perceived threat in a nation with so few Muslims.
I took both totalitarian secularism and Christian theocracy into serious consideration. With both the Obama administration's attitude towards contraceptives and past Supreme Court rulings, it is entirely possible a desire to secularize religious practices is at issue. In a case against Mormon polygamy the Supreme Court ruled the government has the authority to regulate religious practices, though people were still free to believe whatever they want. Of course, this type of ruling is necessary for a civilized society, or else any religious nut could make an appeal to the First Amendment while committing egregious acts. However, and though I think certain Christian denominations might be overreacting, I think Obama is abusing government authority to regulate a religious practice that's not particularly unreasonable.
Perhaps this Obama-nation (abomination - I stole the joke) is an isolated case of the government outstretching its legal power to regulate religion? I really don't know. As such, let's go on to consider Christian theocracy.
It is no secret the majority of Americans identify as Christian. Of course, the only real qualification for being a Christian is to believe there was a guy named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago who supposedly did something important. Regardless, the more vocal within this mob are determined to have their say in how our society is run. Be it trying to sneak creationism into the classroom, opposing gay marriages, or proposing biblical law should mesh with secular law, a significant body of Christians are determined to legitimize only their convictions in public policy.
So perhaps there are two forces at work inside of the United States? Perhaps both totalitarian secularism and Christian theocracy are trying to snuff out religious freedom?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Candid Statement on Abortion
Abortion is one of the issues I have trouble taking a strong stance on. Here is why...
First of all, there is no question that what's developing in the womb is a life. It's alive much in the same manner any of your cells are alive. The real problem is figuring out when to bestow personhood upon the unborn.
Are these globs of cells a person?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HumanEmbryogenesis.svg
What about this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/9-Week_Human_Embryo_from_Ectopic_Pregnancy.jpg
Regardless, there is no dispute that what's developing in the womb will be a person someday. Should this fact garnish legal protection for the unborn? Probably not, but it should demonstrate the gravity of the situation. This is not the same as scratching off some skin cells. An abortion is the destruction of something that will someday be like you and I.
However...
Forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of oppression. It doesn't really matter if this is the intention of the Pro-Life movement or not. They are still responsible for the unintended consequences of the policies they support, and this one should be a blatantly obvious consequence. The anti-abortionists wish to garnish control of a woman's reproductive rights, her sexual liberty, HER BODY.
Making abortion illegal will not end the practice. All it will do is drive an otherwise safe medical procedure underground. Those women who won't get abortions will opt out due to fear; either fear of the law or fear for their health.
One of the best means of fighting poverty is to empower women. Naturally, this entails giving women equal rights and opportunities to men. When women are given the option to get an advanced education and take on a rewarding career, and, when they're not subjected to the wills of their husbands, are able to make their own sexual and reproductive choices, we find a situation where children are not being senselessly brought into the world (which, incidentally, is beneficial to the Pro-Lifers because it will ultimately reduce the necessity for abortions in the first place because women will be making smarter sexual choices). What do we see in countries where women are denied their sexual and reproductive rights? Quite simply we see women reduced to being baby-making factories, and the more kids these women have the less likely it is they'll be able to lift themselves above the poverty line. The last thing the United States needs is to head down the path of third world nations.
So, what are the unintended consequences of making abortion illegal? Well, it creates a state of oppressive fearmongering that increases poverty. Worst of all is that these consequences should be fairly obvious. Anyone with even a modicum amount of critical thinking skills should be able to work out these conclusions.
The original purpose of this blog was to point out that both sides of the abortion debate have some validity to them, but as I've laid out the problems with the Pro-Life position I can't help but to side with the Pro-Choice struggle. Why should I support oppression, fearmongering, and poverty for the sake of something that we can't even determine the point of personhood for?
Nevertheless, I still feel as though the best solution to this problem is to adopt preventative measures. What does this mean? We need to educate people (preferably young people) about sex and provide them with means of preventing pregnancy as well as STIs. Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at helping kids make smart decisions about sex. Furthermore, it favors one specific lifestyle and keeps kids ignorant about how to protect themselves if they fall pray to the "biological imperative."
Do you want to decrease the need for abortion? Support comprehensive sex education. Make condoms and birth control easily available.
First of all, there is no question that what's developing in the womb is a life. It's alive much in the same manner any of your cells are alive. The real problem is figuring out when to bestow personhood upon the unborn.
Are these globs of cells a person?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HumanEmbryogenesis.svg
What about this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/9-Week_Human_Embryo_from_Ectopic_Pregnancy.jpg
Regardless, there is no dispute that what's developing in the womb will be a person someday. Should this fact garnish legal protection for the unborn? Probably not, but it should demonstrate the gravity of the situation. This is not the same as scratching off some skin cells. An abortion is the destruction of something that will someday be like you and I.
However...
Forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of oppression. It doesn't really matter if this is the intention of the Pro-Life movement or not. They are still responsible for the unintended consequences of the policies they support, and this one should be a blatantly obvious consequence. The anti-abortionists wish to garnish control of a woman's reproductive rights, her sexual liberty, HER BODY.
Making abortion illegal will not end the practice. All it will do is drive an otherwise safe medical procedure underground. Those women who won't get abortions will opt out due to fear; either fear of the law or fear for their health.
One of the best means of fighting poverty is to empower women. Naturally, this entails giving women equal rights and opportunities to men. When women are given the option to get an advanced education and take on a rewarding career, and, when they're not subjected to the wills of their husbands, are able to make their own sexual and reproductive choices, we find a situation where children are not being senselessly brought into the world (which, incidentally, is beneficial to the Pro-Lifers because it will ultimately reduce the necessity for abortions in the first place because women will be making smarter sexual choices). What do we see in countries where women are denied their sexual and reproductive rights? Quite simply we see women reduced to being baby-making factories, and the more kids these women have the less likely it is they'll be able to lift themselves above the poverty line. The last thing the United States needs is to head down the path of third world nations.
So, what are the unintended consequences of making abortion illegal? Well, it creates a state of oppressive fearmongering that increases poverty. Worst of all is that these consequences should be fairly obvious. Anyone with even a modicum amount of critical thinking skills should be able to work out these conclusions.
The original purpose of this blog was to point out that both sides of the abortion debate have some validity to them, but as I've laid out the problems with the Pro-Life position I can't help but to side with the Pro-Choice struggle. Why should I support oppression, fearmongering, and poverty for the sake of something that we can't even determine the point of personhood for?
Nevertheless, I still feel as though the best solution to this problem is to adopt preventative measures. What does this mean? We need to educate people (preferably young people) about sex and provide them with means of preventing pregnancy as well as STIs. Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at helping kids make smart decisions about sex. Furthermore, it favors one specific lifestyle and keeps kids ignorant about how to protect themselves if they fall pray to the "biological imperative."
Do you want to decrease the need for abortion? Support comprehensive sex education. Make condoms and birth control easily available.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ron Paul Booed for Stating the Golden Rule
The link function isn't working...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRTLNZmmfs
What a wonderful collection of morons.
The party of Christian Fundamentalism decided to boo Ron Paul for saying we should treat other nations the way we want to be treated.
"Huh!? Ronny's speakin' them there Jeezus teachin's? Booo!"
This is unbelievably stupid! I don't understand what's going on here. Either these people are disturbingly unaware of the lessons taught be Jesus in the Bible or they're smug enough to think God gave them unbridled dominion over the planet and its people (with permission to do unto them as they wish).
What's worse is that the Golden Rule is one of the simpler and better known of Jesus' teachings. It's not as though we have to be biblical scholars to understand the relevance and meaning of Matthew 7:12. Little children should be familiar with the Golden Rule. Little Sunday school loving children, with their wide eyes, ignorant smiles, snot covered noses, ready to have their susceptible minds filled with Family-Friendly stories from the Bible, should be aware of what the Golden Rule is. Nevertheless, here we have grown adults, most of which are presumably Christian, who opted to boo the moral philosophy of their savior.
Maybe there were just a lot of non-Christians in the audience? However, it's not as though one has to be a Christian to appreciate the Golden Rule (which predates Jesus, anyway). We SHOULD treat other people the way we want to be treated. We don't need a Bible passage to figure this out. It's just a part of...common?...human decency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRTLNZmmfs
What a wonderful collection of morons.
The party of Christian Fundamentalism decided to boo Ron Paul for saying we should treat other nations the way we want to be treated.
"Huh!? Ronny's speakin' them there Jeezus teachin's? Booo!"
This is unbelievably stupid! I don't understand what's going on here. Either these people are disturbingly unaware of the lessons taught be Jesus in the Bible or they're smug enough to think God gave them unbridled dominion over the planet and its people (with permission to do unto them as they wish).
What's worse is that the Golden Rule is one of the simpler and better known of Jesus' teachings. It's not as though we have to be biblical scholars to understand the relevance and meaning of Matthew 7:12. Little children should be familiar with the Golden Rule. Little Sunday school loving children, with their wide eyes, ignorant smiles, snot covered noses, ready to have their susceptible minds filled with Family-Friendly stories from the Bible, should be aware of what the Golden Rule is. Nevertheless, here we have grown adults, most of which are presumably Christian, who opted to boo the moral philosophy of their savior.
Maybe there were just a lot of non-Christians in the audience? However, it's not as though one has to be a Christian to appreciate the Golden Rule (which predates Jesus, anyway). We SHOULD treat other people the way we want to be treated. We don't need a Bible passage to figure this out. It's just a part of...common?...human decency.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
A Thought on God and Morality
Whenever I question something in the Bible as being morally reprehensible the response I get is that because it is the word of God, and since God sets objective morality, everything condoned by God in the Bible is objectively good. Every person slaughtered and every woman raped is A-OK just as long as God says it is.
What can we assume is implied by this claim?
Well, it means any intuitive sense of morality I may have is egregiously flawed. I can look at the acts of Yahweh and hold reservations about the supposed goodness of his deeds and commandments, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
But wait just one minute. Why doesn’t this pendulum swing both ways?
If my sense of morality is so faulty that I am unable to judge the God of the Bible as being evil, than how can we trust the moral sense of a Christian to be any better? How can they truly claim that the God of the Bible is good?
Can a Christian reconcile with this issue? I don’t see any means in which this is possible. They certainly couldn’t say that our innate sense of morality is objective. This would mean my claim about God is just as true as theirs. Additionally, they couldn’t use the Bible. The only thing that validates the Bible is the Bible. In order to reach the objective truths in the Bible, a Christian must first know independently of the Bible that what is stated inside is true. This is, of course, a gap in knowledge.
What can we assume is implied by this claim?
Well, it means any intuitive sense of morality I may have is egregiously flawed. I can look at the acts of Yahweh and hold reservations about the supposed goodness of his deeds and commandments, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
But wait just one minute. Why doesn’t this pendulum swing both ways?
If my sense of morality is so faulty that I am unable to judge the God of the Bible as being evil, than how can we trust the moral sense of a Christian to be any better? How can they truly claim that the God of the Bible is good?
Can a Christian reconcile with this issue? I don’t see any means in which this is possible. They certainly couldn’t say that our innate sense of morality is objective. This would mean my claim about God is just as true as theirs. Additionally, they couldn’t use the Bible. The only thing that validates the Bible is the Bible. In order to reach the objective truths in the Bible, a Christian must first know independently of the Bible that what is stated inside is true. This is, of course, a gap in knowledge.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What it Means to be an Atheist
John has this habit of identifying me as an atheist. I'm not offended, of course, and I can understand why he would categorize me as such, but I prefer to use terms like "agnostic" or even just "secularist" when describing myself.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
3rd Blog Event
Ok guys, just for the record, the correct and moral response is to tell God to establish World Peace. I don't know what you two chose yet, but I figured you guys would like to know you might be douchebags (SHAME ON YOU!).
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Next Blog Event Topic
I've been juggling around several topics for a blog event, and I think we need to take a brake from these serious blogs and go with something a bit more fun.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)