Andrew Kaduk at Just for the Record has an inspired rant on the subject of religious wingnuttery, its collision with science, and our government’s inane reaction thereto. Specifically, what has ignited his ire is a decision that the National Park Service had to offer a book for sale that states, as non-fiction, that the Grand Canyon was created on a “Biblical time scale,” as opposed to the millions of years it actually took for water to carve it out. The book Grand Canyon: A Different View asserts that the the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood.
Says Mr. Kaduk:
I am sick, and I am tired, and I am sick and tired. I’m tired of this elephant sitting in each and every room as we try to discuss the problems of the day. Yes, you friggin’ goofballs, you have the right in this country to believe anything that you want. You want to believe that the Earth is a big floating ball of magical putty that “God” bends and shapes at his will? OK. I, however, have the right to expect that my government has the right to be objective and scientifically honest with respect to matters such as the formation of the Grand Canyon or the formation of this planet.
He has better bits in there, but this is a family friendly blog, so I won’t reproduce some of his more colorful passages.
Thanks for the link, Doug!
There was recent short article by AP that was upsetting. It seems that certain religious-oriented special interest groups have successfully lobbied to allow religious Bible study groups to use public school facilities after school. It can be agreed in principle that schools are public instiutions and should allow access to all.Everyone pays taxes.
But in the case of student inspired gay-straight clubs that also promote understanding,these same groups bring out the Bible to exclude them.
The point is neither gay studies nor religion should be taught during school, but after school? Public means public.
I don’t have any agenda except respecting the Constitutionally inspired american concept of ‘fairplay’ and equal treatment under the law.
Lou,
What the evangelists and fundamentalists want is a theocracy. As your scenario notes, where religious groups cannot seek “quality” (because they already have it), they seek advantage.
We’re lucky that our would-be Christian versions of the Ayatollah Khomeini can’t keep their noses clean (or their hands), as in the cases of Ted Haggard and Ralph Reed. How luck will our luck hold?
Branden,
What is so dangerous is that we now have merged politics with the morality of religion: the former requires skepticsm and the latter requires faith.I read the long series of posts in this blog about the nature of life and abortion and it struck me that so much is in the definition.Why do we let Envangelicals make up the glossary of moral terms? Many use terms such as pro-life,sancitity of life,and pro-choice as if they are all religious references but they are also very political. Can a person be an atheist and believe in the sanctity of life? It’s never even debated. Believe what you will about God but vote with skepticism.I consider myself a believer..I believe in the sanctity and the truth of the mass.So what am I? When do ‘my kind’ get to lead prayer at public gatherings? Is it for me to decide or for someone else? The KKK marches came from the churches, sometimes marchers holding Bibles. . The Civil rights movement also came from the churches ,people sometimes carrying Bibles in hand.God has a culture and He takes on the nature of the leader(s) of whatever church they go to. God is larger than how we are able to see Him.
We need more examination within Christianity and fewer discussions of secular vs religion: that’s a given. The knitpicking about creches and menorahs and saying ‘Happy Holidays’ vs ‘Merry Christmas’it’s all just a diversion,a part of the plan.
Lou,
Very insightful post. As to this question:
Check this link out. (godlessprolifers.org)
I do agree that laws should not be passed with the Bible as the reason for the law. Laws should be passed because there is a moral reason to do so. Morals can come from religion, but atheists are not immoral. For example, people of most faiths (or not) agree murder is wrong. Most agree racism is wrong. There is were we pass laws.
However, even in those two things some people disagree. Some people, and even some faiths to not see murder or human rights the same way as the majority. So do we not pass those laws since not everyone can agree? No, we pass the laws that most people agree with when it comes to protecting people.
Jason,
Just a couple notes to your last post. Of course people disagree on issues,but that isn’t my main point. For me it’s the manipulation of the language to color the message.Let’s start with that website: ‘godless prolifers’.The name is offensive. Pro-life is an anti-abortion characterization. It suggests that the opposite view is ‘pro-death’.Another objection is using the word ‘murder’ Murder is a legal term,isnt it? Murder is judged by legal process in degrees.And a murderer is tried ,judged and sentenced.Abortion is legal so it can’t be, by definiton , any form of ‘murder’ I try to avoid any discussion with abortion because it’s a hopeless discussion with two sides never ever meeting on common ground.Part of the problem is how words are defined and how meanings are assumed.The same ‘anti-abortionists'( I think the term ‘anti-abortionist’ identifies the issue most acuurately) are the ones who think gays shouldn’t EVER be allowed to adopt those children born..People should always be judged as individudals not pre-categorized by group.I think people should be allowed to sin without a political consequence.Laws are to protect society,not to punish sinners. Sinners are punished by going to Hell.’Sin definitions’ are all too easy to target politically,and so many people feel sin is assumed and there need be NO discussion..It seems perfectly reasonable to me to divide pregnancy between viable and non -viable stages,and make a law on that basis.. It’s the only compromise I can see.If that is rejected then there’s no point discussing it on a moral basis.I’ve always looked at abortion issue( and anti-gay legislation) as a political ice berg.It identifies a whole social agenda just under the surface.If you tell me that I’m also guilty of pre-judging then you got me! So I’ll just shut up.
correction: I meant to write…”people should be allowed to sin without a LEGAL consequence” political consequence( as I wrote) is always possible and often justified..
I TOTALLY agree. When I say “morals”, I am speaking in the context of harm to others. “Your rights end where mine begin” type of thinking.
I do not understand why so many people assume that someone is trying to make “sin” illegal. I know SOME lawmakers do try to do that, but that is not what many people want. They want protection for others.
True. Just as “Pro-choice” means that the opposite view is either “Anti-Choice” or “Pro-slavery” or something like that. That isn’t true, there are still choices. Your pro/anti abortion terms are more correct.
You just did the action you are against. Many ‘anti-abortionists’ would rather someone adopt children, regardless of their sexual orentation. People should always be judged as individudals not pre-categorized by group.
I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize pro-choice advocates as “pro-abortion.” They’d rather abortion not be necessary; hence the advocacy of many of them for pervasive sex education and easily available contraception (things opposed by many in the pro-life camp.)
With respect to abortion, they aren’t necessarily “pro-abortion” (though some of those with strong views on population control probably are), by and large, they just think the government ought not be sticking its nose into the debate by making criminals out of those who would choose the procedure.
In any case, I see very little room for compromise on the issue of abortion. If a fully human life begins at the moment of conception, abortion is murder. Without a change in that premise, I don’t see how pro-lifers can morally compromise their position. (As I’ve mentioned before, given that premise, I don’t really see how pro-lifers can morally refrain from storming abortion clinics with torches and pitchforks today and every day.)
Obviously, I don’t subscribe to that premise — but it is there that the debate begins and ends I think.
Lou,
You wrote:
The Supreme Court justices who decided Roe v. Wade felt the same way.
As medical technology improves, however, it is conceivable that the threshhold between viability and non-viability will be pushed earlier and earlier into the pregnancy. Leaving aside the issue of effective contraception for a moment, this can make the problem of abortion worse rather than better, even viewed from both sides. This is because abortion is frequently a difficult choice that requires time for deliberation, and a pregnancy may not be diagnosed for some time after it happens, reducing that window for a well-considered decision. Of course most of the advocates of zygote citizenship would welcome this development, but I strongly suspect a likely consequence is that women, knowing they’ll be cornered into a hasty decision should they learn they’re pregnant, will use abortifacent drugs with much greater frequency without actually knowing whether they’re pregnant. This could substantially increase the number of abortions that actually occur, but in a way that is difficult to measure and even more difficult to police. We’d be faced with the unpleasant prospect of inspecting the toilet paper, sanitary napkins, and tampons of all fertile women for evidence of an abortion. If we reach the point where even a fertilized egg is viable, through removal and implantation into an artificial (or willing host) uterus, this is where we’ll be.
Now contraception comes back into the picture. The only alternative to such invasive and distateful policing is to ban all contraceptives that might be abortifacents, and given that the “Plan B” drug is pharmacologically identical to existing pre-pregnancy contraceptives (i.e., “the Pill”), one necessarily ends up banning the most effective known meands of contraception, short of sterilization.
This is where the chain of reasoning ends, and I don’t think it’s a slippery slope given that many of those who oppose all abortion also oppose all contraception. For an example, I point you to the Catholic Church.
The consequence of this reasoning is that fertile women are to be viewed as breeding stock, and that sexual activity essentially imposes not the potential, but the responsiblility to produce children.
Of course, there is always the possibility of abstinence — the key point here is that if two fertile people engage in sexual activity, the woman is morally obliged to carry and deliver any resulting children. This is a pretty stark ultimatum in cases of rape or incest, but it follows from the logic that a woman’s uterus doesn’t really belong to her, it belongs to whatever blastocyst implants itself in the lining.
The idea is occasionally floated that, if a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want to carry it, that the embryo(s) could be surgically recovered from her body and placed in a suitable environment (again, a host mother or artificial uterus). But consider what this means — it means surgery, mandated by the State, on any woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant, with the concomitant risks to her health and the life of the embryo. Statistically, it’s inevitable that in a surgical procedure things are going to go wrong from time to time. Consider the irony of killing the baby to save it.
The above is why vigorous anti-abortionists generally insist that the mother carry to term and then give the infant(s) up for adoption if she doesn’t want it/them.
The view of the Catholic Church (and some fundamentalist Protestant sects) is, I think, internally consistent. If one accepts their premises, one reaches conclusions that are inimical to the autonomy and independence of women.
I have not seen any evidence that liberalizing access to abortion and, even more critically, contraception — to all fertile females, will result in the nightmare scenario of thousands of third-trimester abortions. The fact that such third-trimester fetuses are generally viable, though, I think starts the entire discussion on the wrong foot, and ends up as above, with no abortions anywhere for anyone.
My solution is to scrutinize the premises of the anti-abortion camp, and reject them where I find them unsound. That includes the premise that a woman has anything short of unconditional ownership of her own reproductive organs. I am glad that we do not live in the Dark Ages, and I do not support attempts to return us to that time.
Neat. I think I may have spelled out explicitly the chain of reasoning that Doug was alluding to in his post, which he made while I was composing that lengthy treatise. :)
Not trying to speak for you, though, Doug.
Doug:
This is spot on. If one is not prepared to allow women control of their own reproduction — including the rare abortion — then logically one must be prepared to impose daily pregnancy tests on all demonstrably fertile females. If it’s not her choice to make, then it’s not her choice to make, and we shouldn’t beat around the bush.
The real reason this doesn’t happen[*] is because there are too many strident anti-abortion activists with wives, sisters, or daughters who fall short of the ideal of the virgin mother. Sexual experimentation in youth, marital infidelity, and criminal phenomena like rape and incest happen all the time. When those who squawk the loudest are made to feel the consequences of their doctrine, their own stridency loses its appeal — all to often, though, only in secret. Hypocrisy is seldom too bitter a pill to swallow.
[*] I would have used to say the reason it won’t happen is because the American people will not tolerate a police state. President Bush and his fellow Republicans and conservatives proved me wrong on that point. Congratulations to them.
Branden,
You made reference to a ‘police state’I don’t think this country is a police state (yet), but certainly our present administration would feel comfortable with it. And isn’t it curious that fascism, if i can use this extremist term, is invariable built on the manipulation of ‘social issues’… ‘Define’ the bad people and make them the issue.Everyone who wrote above; Doug, Jason, Branden,and the writer of the initial posting,Andrew Kaduk(and may I include myself?)all are addressing social/political issues,and each of us responded taking into consideration what has just been presented, and that’s ‘dialogue’
Andrew Kaduk had no control of where the line of thinking would go.I hope I’ve made a point without continuing further.
Lou,
I believe that Bush has arrogated to the federal executive all the powers necessary to a police state; see, for one example among many, Slate’s recent article, The 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of 2006.
That they “haven’t come for the Jews” yet is little comfort to me. Your mileage may vary.