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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)