We had a little drama in St Paul this morning: an anti-choice kook decided that an effective way to silence a family planning clinic was to smash the entrance to Planned Parenthood with his SUV.
Several employees were in the building at the time, said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathi Di Nicola. She said the SUV hit the front door of the clinic two or three times, damaging the clinic’s front door and surrounding stonework.
When Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. “He was agitated and he was saying, ‘shut down this Auschwitz,’ ” she said.
Violent, unthinking, incoherent, and flaunting his piety. Typical.
In contrast, the staff at the clinic responded calmly and with discipline.
If you don’t respect the property right of a woman to her own body, how can anyone expect you to respect anyone else’s property or rights?
Take somebody slightly deranged and add religion. Like adding fuel to a fire. It’s just surprising this doesn’t happen more often.
Another case of religion-fueled brain rot. Christians really need to speak out against this kind of violence. Tame your flock pastors!
I often wonder: Is deep religious belief the cause of such behaviour, i.e. would this guy have been a normal, rational person if he had not (I assume) been brought up in a fundamentally religious environment or would he have still been a dangerous kook anyway?
SteveN
By the way, PZ: …AN anti-choice kook…
Assuming the guy has auto insurance, would the insurance pay for the damage to the building?
Auschwitz was a family planning clinic? Has that guy been smoking the same contaminated weed that Ben Stein uses?
I worked at an abortion clinic – we kept the blinds down on the windows to spoil the shots of sniper.
We shared the boilding with other busniesses – any woman entering that building had to run the guantlet of these bigots – whether they went to the clinic or somewhere else.
Plase support PP & the other providers, the are literally on the front row of the cultural wars and it’s no metaphore for them.
Assuming the guy has auto insurance, would the insurance pay for the damage to the building?
My auto insurance doesn’t pay for criminal misconduct that’s the driver’s fault. I doubt his does. I carry legal insurance that allows me to hire a lawyer at a discounted rate to defend me from felony charges, but that’s not the same thing.
Lovely. And so close to home too :/.
You know I’m tempted to get a group of people with big graphic signs with an assortment of various fetuses in the first few weeks of pregnancy of say: a sheep, a cat, a chicken, a human and a monkey and see if these people can tell which one we are suppose to be fighting to keep alive. Or a large sign that has actual facts written on it in large letters and stand right where the protesters can read them.
In summary I want to protest the protesters. They’re mostly non hostile right?
It’s the day. Big “We pwnz your bones” oopsImean Anti-choice demonstration on the National Mall. OK, not that big.
Scary, and not surprising.
Sayeth the Police Spokesperson:
Intentional, really? Three times? Do ya THINK?
At least it’s not terrorism. No crackers were threatened.
I believe in post-birth abortion, and this kook is at the top of the list.
Why aren’t attacks against women’s clinics considered terrorism?
I hope that the law, &/or medical profession, deals firmly with the bozo.
What’s the big deal with fetuses, anyway? They’ve never done anything for me. We don’t need a surplus of them.
he was actually looking for the transplant centre where he was expecting to receive a new brain
StevenN @4,
Dangerous kook, I think. Religion is just the lens this nut projects his insanity through. Lets just be glad he wasn’t an armed kook.
Why aren’t attacks against women’s clinics considered terrorism?
Not inconceivable under an Obama administration. We can only hope…
Posted by: DGKnipfer | January 22, 2009
Lets just be glad he wasn’t an armed kook.
As someone who survived being hit by an SUV, I will say that the person was armed.
Oh, but there hasn’t been terrorist attacks on our soil since 911!
“Why aren’t attacks against women’s clinics considered terrorism?”
Because they’re against women. Who cares about them? We must save the babiezzzzz!!1
I find it telling that the religious bigot was also driving an SUV.
Cuz hey, if you’re going to be a deranged, anti-choice, theocratic, chauvinist pig, might as well kick in a disregard for the environment while you’re at it.
To all fundamentalists/religious extremists/Biblically-inspired, legislatively-inclined anti-abortion crusaders, here it is, in short, before you waste more electrons trying to convert/damn us all to hell:
1. Abortion is not prohibited in the Bible (Infanticide and the killing or pregnant mothers is sometimes commanded, and there is a fine you pay to the father if you punch a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry).
2. We already have biblical abortion laws. The bible defines the start of life with the drawing of breath. Don’t like it? Take it up with God.
3. Over half of all fetuses spontaneously abort. If there’s a god, that means God is taking out a whole lot of babies. Again, don’t like it? Take it up with God.
4. The people who are pro-choice are doing more to reduce the number of abortions than you ever have or will. We are generally pro-education, pro-birth control, and pro-family planning. If you are anti-abortion, yet also anti-sex.ed. and anti-contraception, expect only mockery and dismissal. You are trying to light a fire with one hand, douse with the other.
5. Not everybody is a Christian. Why should we live be your rules? Christians have failed to control their own herd with regards teen-sex, teen-pregnancy, and abortion rates. Get your own house in order, and leave everyone else alone because..
6. You’ve failed to make any secular case for outlawing abortion. at all. Something without neurons has no consciousness and can feel no pain (yes, I am in favor of aborting early whenever possible). The only one’s who would feel the loss of the potential child, the parents, are the ones making the choice. People who are too young, too uneducated, too poor, and oftentimes too ill-tempered to take care of a child voluntarily choosing to abort a pregnancy are performing a social good. We do not need more people on this planet.
Is there anything I’ve missed? Please add.
He must be very proud of himself; he finally managed to work himself into enough of a righteous fit that he actually did something violent and martyr-like for his god. Wonder how long he’s been working on that.
“Take somebody slightly deranged and add religion.”
I don’t think slightly deranged covers it. These people are full blown sociopaths. They have no tolerance of any other human beings at all. That’s why they cling to their god so much.
Mental. Just have to be glad no-one was hurt I guess. Must be pretty scary going into work on a day when you know you could face something like this.
To any moderate Christians reading this, you’re part of the problem. The Christian terrorists and the Muslim terrorists need you.
Those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and recognize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the millions of their fellow followers.
— Bill Maher, Religulous
I can understand why these kooky radicals want to define life as beginning at conception rather than when the brain develops. It’s the only way they themselves could be defined as alive.
Another classic example of someone with out a clue, trying to make rules for something HE will never experience. What is it about these anti-choice morons that they can’t get it through their thick skulls:
When your are pregnant, you get to have a say about yourself. When it happens in someone else’s skin, sit down and shut up.
They get hopping mad when we tell them they can’t force our children to pray in schools. Why can’t they understand the anger of women when someone else tries to control bodies that the fools don’t live in?
Any news if there is a donation drive going to help repair the damage that this idiot did?
Today is the 36 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I thought Obama was supposed to mark the day by rescinding the “Mexico City” policy and initiating the repeal of the “Right of Conscience” rule. So far..crickets.
Abortion, on demand, safe, inexpensive, no questions asked (unless to assure the physician of the health of the patient).
Is that in the liability portion of your insurance or property damage?
I don’t know anything about the particulars of insurance law in Minnesota, but the general purpose of auto liability insurance statutes is more focused on making the victims whole than just protecting the person from the financial effects of what they did, e.g. insurers still pay the liability claims related to their policyholder who was speeding or drunk while in an accident, so the most likely result is that the auto insurer will pay for the damage done by the driver. It is possible that they may be allowed to make a claim against the driver for the loss because it was intentional, but that would not necessarily be allowed. The insurers are likely not to have to pay for the repair of the vehicle, but if the vehicle is totalled, they are likely to have to pay the balance on any loans.
I’m guessing that the insurer of Planned Parenthood (business interruption), the insurer of the building owner (property damage) and the insurer of the driver (liability), will work it out to their satisfaction, quickly and quietly. None of them would want this to be news.
I’ve always wondered if jesus would drive a suv. I’m almost certain he wouldn’t have attempted to drive through a building, but times they are a changin.
If not an act of terror, it should at least count as a Hate Crime, with concomitant expanded criminal penalties. I also agree that he should be viewed as having been “armed”. If you point a gun at someone and shoot to kill, it is no different than pointing your Suburban at someone and trying to run them over.
Wouldn’t be prudent, wouldn’t be bipartisan, wouldn’t be cooperative…
I wish Mr.Obama were as courageous as he seems cooperative…
Atheists can flip out and do crazy stuff too. This is a mental health issue.
While it’s definitely a mental health issue, this is a different type of stunt than the guy who shot up the place a while back saying “if you aren’t a Christian you’re going to die”.
This is a continuation of a long history of anti-abortion protesters going violent. This is directly a result of that ideology. Far different than a random mental collapse brought on by illness.
“Wouldn’t be prudent, wouldn’t be bipartisan, wouldn’t be cooperative…
I wish Mr.Obama were as courageous as he seems cooperative…”
*********
After watching the Congressional Dems, including Obama, cave in to Bush/Cheney over the past two years, I am in no mood to cut them anymore slack.
Freak…asshole…
Well, duh!
G-D calmed the savage beasts to save his brave, Christian warrior from getting torn to shreds by them.
It’s Damokles all over again!
Wasn’t very competent either. If he was going a good rate of speed with a full tank of gas, he wouldn’t be able to get out of his SUV.
Of course this is terrorism by any definition. If it isn’t, terrorism doesn’t exist.
Jason Failes #23
Get that man a Molly, stat! Best post in ages.
These people are terrorists. Period.
We had an attempted bombing of an abortion clinic in Austin two years ago. A clinic employee spotted a suspicious duffel bag in the parking lot. The clinic was part of a strip-mall style office complex, with an apartment complex close by, and facing a freeway.
The charge against this fucktard was attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. He had to plea bargain down to 40 years in the pen.
Maybe the same thing can happen to this moron with his black chariot of Jeebus fire.
Clearly, this terrorist needs to be sent to Gitmo and waterboarded until he gives up his co-conspirators. Surely he’s part of a broader network of terror and, dammit, lives are on the line. Ticking time bomb folks! How many more SUV drivers are poised to assault women’s clinics?!?
At least, that’s how I learned from eight years of Republicanism how to deal with such events.
“If not an act of terror, it should at least count as a Hate Crime”
Is there really a difference though? I’m talking intent, not what the laws say. Isn’t the point of a hate crime to terrorize the object of the bigot’s hate?
Seems a semantic difference to me.
I’m actually hoping that his car insurance won’t pay and that instead he’ll be forced to pay for this out-of-pocket (probably for the rest of his life). I see no reason why attempted homicide should rise insurance premiums for the rest of us.
I agree the comments in #23 are excellent.
#23: “We do not need more people on this planet.”
I suggest we do not need more religious people on this planet. More atheists would not be a problem because they would be more likely to respect our planet and endangered species.
Unfortunately atheists usually have smaller families, using abortion if necessary, while the religious nuts reproduce like rabbits.
Endor @21:
See what happens? Bushie isn’t gone for three days before we were attacked again. I for one am sorry to have doubted the goodness of his heart and the protection that he and Jesus provided to our country.
I’ve always wondered why bigwigs in the media didn’t ask anyone in administration about the number of terrorist attacks before 9/11. What a crock of shit.
Sadly, I think we should expect more of this with right-wingers feeling helpless with Bush out of office. Brace for, but fight against, more domestic soil violence.
Actually, Bob, I think from all standpoints, Jason’s statement is defensible (but that is not to say that I disagree with your statement here…).
Too close to home for comfort (I live in St Paul, and my son’s school is a quarter-mile away).
Agree, this is terrorism, or the word has lost meaning.
ewj @ 7
Man, that sounds familiar. I went to high school for a time in a building in downtown Minneapolis that also housed an abortion provider. We had protesters all the damn time, and they regularly had no one to harrass but us high school kids. I don’t know how the patients came in – once I went upstairs to see if they could prescribe me antibiotics for an ear infection (no, they couldn’t) and the waiting room was packed. But I never saw anyone except my classmates come into the building. Maybe the clinic was sneaking people in the back.
One protester actually physically blocked the door to a classmate of mine, who apparently was not sufficiently polite when telling the woman to go fuck herself. They got a stiff talking to from the cops, but I wish my classmate or the clinic would have pressed charges.
@ Ouchimoo, #9, you make a very good point. I remember in high school that someone had shown me a picture of a fetus and said that it is clearly a life because it sort of looks like a baby. Several years later in college, I was taking a basic biology course, and there was a picture of a pig, mouse, and human embryo side-by-side that looked almost the same. I wouldn’t have been able to tell which was which without the caption. I wish I had that book when I first encountered that anti-choice person.
@ Ouchimoo, #9, you make a very good point. I remember in high school that someone had shown me a picture of a fetus and said that it is clearly a life because it sort of looks like a baby. Several years later in college, I was taking a basic biology course, and there was a picture of a pig, mouse, and human embryo side-by-side that looked almost the same. I wouldn’t have been able to tell which was which without the caption. I wish I had that book when I first encountered that anti-choice person.
Coming from a guy who is both an atheist and pro-choice, I think we should realize that this guy at least understood the true consequences of his position. Just a few items back there was the questioning of pro-life protesters as to what to do if they were successful in getting their way and a woman had a (illegal) abortion. What are the consequenses of getting your way and running into this situation? They didn’t know, they hadn’t thought it through.
Let’s face it, if pro-lifers really, really believed that abortion was murder, we should be seeing a TON of this kind of thing. If (hypothetically) millions of people in this country were being rounded up and placed in concentration camps and then killed, I would not ignore it. I would not picket the camp. I, too, would ram my vehicle into the gate (or much worse) in an effort to stop such horror. I would like to think that any rational human being would take extreme measures under extreme circumstances. This person is taking the kind of rational action that his flawed beliefs have led him to.
This is why I don’t 1) respect or 2) believe pro lifers. They don’t act appropriately on their position.
I note the URL classifies this story as ‘politics’. Pity it’s not under ‘crime’ where it belongs.
re: #23
Failes = WIN
This happened just up the street from my offices. I recently moved from the midwest (Missouri) to the upper midwest (Twin Cities) and had hoped to leave much of this type of insanity behind. Guess not.
Hopefully the staff also responded by calling the police, and the psychotic loon’s cooling his heels in jail tonight. Man, that’s scary.
Isn’t it great how peaceful and loving and forgiving Christians are?
Does this mean gummy bears are clearly life? They look similar to a fetus.
I think you mean self-righteous, deranged and judgmental.;)
And-U-Say, I think this is because their real purpose is not to save the little fetuses, but to punish girls (women) for having sex. If they really wanted to reduce fetus death, they would be out there handing out birth control materials and disseminating information. No, the results of their double whammy of keeping kids ignorant and then hammering down when they are caught (by getting preggers) reveals their real motives.
These are the same folks who won’t get their daughters the HPV vaccines, either. Their little cupcakes will never get raped, I suppose – or married.
@ 23,
good post,just a quick minor correction,
This is incorrect.The rate is around 20-25% before the 6th week of pregnancy,these are the ones that usually go unnoticed,and ca 8-10% after that.Still a lot of fetuses that god kills though.
Take somebody slightly deranged and add religion.
You have to be slightly deranged to believe the religious NONSENSE to begin with.
I’m still pissed at the anti-abortionist crowd. They caused me to lose a really SWEET job back in 1980 when Reagan was elected (promising to end abortion).
I lost a house-sitting job for an abortion doctor who was planning on doing some foreign studies and ended up canceling his educational trip to form a lobby to save his job.
This guy shouldn’t be charged with a hate crime or even with terrorism. He should be held for attempted murder, the penalty for which OUGHT to be greater than selling pot. Empty the jails of non violent drug ‘offenders’ and fill them up with REAL criminals.
Enjoy.
They will charge an airplane passenger with terrorism for yelling at a flight attendant while throwing something on the floor, but they won’t charge a person who deliberately crashes a lethal weapon into a building intent on destruction. I’ll bet the the fundie wingnut blogs are going crazy declaring him a hero and a soldier for christ. It’s just a matter of time before he appears on Hannity.
At least one recent hate crime is being treated as terrorism. A woman from Georgia learned that her house was burned down while she was on the way to the inauguration. A message was also spray painted on her property that alluded to assassinating the president, and apparently that was finally enough to get it treated as a terrorist act. So perhaps we will start seeing these property and life threatening pro-lifers being treated as terrorists, too, like they should be.
After all, what is the difference of intention between driving a plane into a building and driving a car into a building? In both cases the driver is trying to destroy property and kill people to make a political statement or even change how a society behaves.
@Rev. BigDumbChimp
I think a better analogy can be derived from Balut
Oh, I get it now. When the right wing creotards were warning about religious fundie terorists attacking the US when Obama took office, I didn’t realise that they were warning us that it would be by them. There was me thinking they meant Islamic fundie terrorists, silly me.
@John Phillips, FCD
You don’t have to look outside the country’s borders to find terrorists.
I wonder what the Nazis would have done to this Christard if he had tried this on the actual Auschwitz…
In a just world, the insane churches that promote this kind of anti-choice idiocy would have to deal with the same terrorism they encourage against others.
Jason Failes@23,
One question I always pose to those opposing abortion on Christian grounds is “Aren’t you supposed to be satisfied with the justice that will be administered in the hereafter? Jesus didn’t get violent with the Romans over their abuses. In the Old Testament, the tribes weren’t called together for domestic issues, such as abuse or causing loss of a pregnancy, these were handled locally presumably at the extended family level. So why are you making a federal or state issue of this. Let these people live with the consequences of their choices, both in this life and the hereafter.”
That’s the question you can pose to them on any “moral” issue.
It never matters. Mostly their eyes glaze over and then start waving their hands in such a vigorous fashion you think they’ll fly away.
“We do not need more people on this planet.
Is there anything I’ve missed? Please add.”
I’d like to add that you don’t get to decide how many people we need on this planet.
I agree with most of the other things you’ve said.
More “good Christian love” for women in action, folks. That’s all it is.
Jason Failes @23:
Plenty of specific evils are not condemned by name in the Bible. Biblical injunctions are not the sole source of Christian morality. As for the infanticide & killing of pregnant women, some citations would be helpful.
The Bible is not the sole source of Christian morality.
No, the Bible sometimes uses breath as a poetic synonym for life. “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations”.
“The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done … “ Newsflash: We are not God.
As you are aware, Christians regard contraception, “sex education” etc as intrinsically evil as well. You may find that position incomprehensible or deplorable, but there is no hypocrisy or inconsistency.
And even if we were permitted do evil in the hope that good may come of it, it is questionable whether such would be the case in this instance. Are countries with widespread contraception and sex education notable for their negligable abortion rates?
Not everyone is a liberal. Why should we live by your rules? That’s why it’s called a kulturkampf — two parties with radically irreconcilable views fighting to determine the character of society. To the winner the spoils.
Your evidence for that assertion?
It’s not about making a “secular case”. It’s a kulturkampf.
Which is fair enough if that exhausts your definition of a human being.
These folk would agree with you. People here seem to grieve more for reticulated pythons than children.
lol, nice to see that Christian followers have their priorities right…
Piltdown,
Then why do (some, not all) Christians condemn homosexuality and adultery on the grounds that God has said they are wrong? There are, for the most part, no secular laws against it.
If some are to be followed and some aren’t by whose standards do we judge which of God’s explicit instructions are to be followed and which aren’t?
The bible uses poetry to describe many things. Are we then to assume that any part of the bible that can be considered ‘poetry’ is not to be taken literally? And by whose standard of poetry do we judge it?
So you agree God aborts children. But if that’s the case, who are we to say that the abortionist is not performing God’s work? It is claimed that Doctors are performing God’s work when they are healing – God could heal if He wanted to, but he has doctors to do it for him. What, then, is the difference? How do we tell?
So, all evil is equal in the eyes of Christians? Surely the ‘evil’ of contraception – where a live is prevented from beginning in the first place – is less evil than, say, the desecration of the Eucharist? Is the desecration of the Eucharist more or less evil than the murder of an adult human being?
Are pro-choicers forcing anti-choicers to have abortions? Are pregnant Catholic women being abducted for forced terminations? The answer, obviously, is no.
Pro-choicers are not demanding that anyone who doesn’t want to have an abortion should have one; anti-choicers, on the other hand, are demanding others should be told what to do against their will. Christians are not seeking a middle ground; they want it all their own way, as usual.
Yes. Do some reading. Go here, for example. I thought you lived in the UK – are you that ignorant?
Again, do some reading. The states in the USA with the highest abortion rates are those in the so-called ‘Bible Belt’. States with lower incidence of fundamentalist religious belief (such is in the northeast), have lower abortion rates. I’ve already done enough research for you this post.
Number 31? I’ve cited it for you before, as you well remember. You dismissed it then; will you dismiss it again now? Here’s 15-17:
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
As it says in the SAB:
The bible has no prohibition against killing infants, pregnant mothers and unborn children; in the contrary, God orders it and revels in the slaughter. Christians protesting abortion are hypocrites and liars.
Your willful ignorance and obtuse blathering does not change that.
This post has been great, if for no other reason than if someone finds themselves in the grasp of a python I’ll be able to provide them with several options as to how to encourage it to let go.
I can’t wait for a party where this comes in handy!
Er, that (my post #82) should have gone on the snake post. Apologies – I’m exhausted from my rapid-fire attempt to rebut Piltdown’s more-obtuse-than-usual comments…
When I saw Pilty’s name in the comments, I read it as Piltdown Man is Deranged and destructive. It seemed more appropriate that way tbh
I know it sounds harsh to say so, but Piltdown Man has accelerated my move away from orthodox Christianity. These days I’m calling myself a deist.
The trouble is that neither conventional Protestant nor Catholic belief hold up to rational scrutiny. The evangelical Protestant belief in sola scriptura doesn’t stand up when we consider the known historical errors in the Bible, not to mention the problems inherent in using it as any sort of moral guide for life (e.g. Numbers 31, as cited above); the petty, tyrannical God described therein is not a character I would choose to worship even were I convinced that he existed. Conversely, the Catholic belief in papal infallibility, and the authority of church tradition, doesn’t stack up when one considers the long history of political infighting, megalomania, and European power struggles that produced these doctrines in their modern form. Some of the medieval popes were far from being good role models (the Borgias, for instance).
And while I totally support the right of devout Catholics to refrain from using contraception, engaging in homosexual activities, having or performing abortions, etc, if they so choose, I don’t think the sectarian beliefs of one sector of society are, in a free country, ever a sufficient justification for imposing coercive law. The fact that your religion disapproves of something does not give you the right to use the power of the State to prevent others from engaging in it. Any legal prohibition of anything must therefore have a compelling secular justification. As regards contraception and gay marriage, there is no such justification as far as I can tell. Abortion is more of a grey area.
Piltdown Man @#79 says
“And even if we were permitted do evil in the hope that good may come of it, it is questionable whether such would be the case in this instance.”
In what instances would Christians be “permitted do evil in the hope that good may come of it”?
If you don’t know the answer, I can give you numerous examples of Christians doing evil in the hope that good may come of it.
Pilty:
Epic fail. All Christian morals, where they differ from secular morals, are sourced from the Bible. You have no other source. You can’t even work out which you should obey (homophobia) or not (not eating shellfish or pork).
I wonder if it’s possible to rehabilitate these dangerous and delusional morons, so one day they might go back and become peaceful members of society.
Also, I think the late and great George Carlin was right when he said that these people aren’t anti-abortion, they’re anti-women.
I’m trying to think of something witty to add to this but all I got is:
LOL!
Pilt, if you are right about Kulturkampf (perhaps you should call it “culture war” since ‘kampf’ has had negative connotations since about the 1930’s) be aware that you are going to push many in the center closer to us, just like you did with Walton.
I also hate the idea of a “culture war”. I hate this idea, so prevalent in American political culture, of a stark dichotomy between “liberal secular progressives” and “religious conservatives”. I subscribe to neither view: both are, in different ways, statist and anti-freedom.
And it’s sad that so many on both sides have the attitude of “if you aren’t for us, you’re against us”. I generally agree with conservatives on economic matters (though they don’t go far enough for my liking), and on the importance of cutting down government bureaucracy, reducing tax, deregulating the economy, and devolving political functions to the most local level possible. I’m also doubtful about abortion-on-demand. But I agree with liberals on the importance of social freedom and privacy of one’s personal life, the right to marriage equality, separation of church and state, civil liberties and fair trials. According to some, this makes me godless liberal scum; according to others, this makes me evil heartless conservative scum.
I would like to draw this to everyone’s attention:
The buzz in the local TV “news” this morning was all about how this guy had symptoms of mental illness.
The money line: It’s essentially impossible to distinguish between religious fervor and mental illness.
As has been said many times before: If you are crazy in your own unique way, then you’re just crazy. If you are crazy and you have lots of fellows in your craziness, then it’s religion.
Pilty:
The God I was raised to believe in was the God of the Christian creeds: created the universe and humans, came to earth to die to atone for our sins, is one entity in three persons (whatever that could possibly mean – since it violates English meanings), is loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, sends all non-Christians to hell for eternal torment.
This God doesn’t fit the data I find in the real world. This is the basic reason for my rejecting it (also my reason for rejecting gods, generally.)
Love me or burn: The central dogma of Christianity are that you must love Jesus and accept him as God and then you will be “saved” and spend eternity in Heaven after you die. If you don’t do this, you will be tormented in hell for an eternal (endless, infinite) period of time. These are the simple conclusions that follow from Christian dogma (airy sophistry about mild Jesus bringing love and happiness to your life does not change the basic equation.) All non-Christians burn: if you are not a Christian (and many Christian sects extend this to any kind of Christian other than their brand), then you burn in hell forever, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN A BIBLE BURN FOREVER, and there have been many millions (billions probably) of these in the history of the earth. Even insincere Christians burn: those who go through the motions but don’t truly believe. This God is asserted to be kind, loving, and forgiving. This is logically inconsistent. (It’s also thought-crime; and we know how moral thought-crime enforcement is.)
Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Matthew 10:33: “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”
Eternal punishment in hell: Forever is a long time. Punishment is understood by humans to be just when it fits the offense committed. (Remember ground rule 8.) ETERNAL punishment even of a very mild sort (and hell is described in Christian doctrine as blood-curdlingly nasty, even without the eternal part thrown in), is, by definition, infinite in scope (anything multiplied by infinity is infinite.) The only just offense for which it could be imposed is an infinitely bad one. Humans have finite powers and therefore are incapable of an infinitely bad offense. A person’s lack of knowledge of this special God, Jesus, cannot be justly judged to be an infinitely bad offense. (Please keep ground rules 7 and 8 in mind.) The dogma of hell is simply logically inconsistent with the definition Christians provide of their God: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, loving, forgiving, kind. Imposing an infinite punishment for any finite offense is unjust and evil. Therefore, it can never be justly imposed on humans, who have finite abilities. The good judge others by their character, not their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture.
An atheist (or some one who has never been exposed to Christian teaching) who lives an exemplary life, deeply moral, kind, generous, forgiving, public-spirited, devotes themselves and all their possessions to the care of the poor, but who does one lick of work on the sabbath, swears, tells a single lie, has a single thought of lust for his neighbor’s beautiful wife or daughter, steals one tiny bit of food when starving (actually, given the Christian doctrine of “original sin” no action of this sort is necessary for the conclusion to follow) will be subjected to an INFINITE punishment. However, if a venally evil murderer, rapist, thief, pederast, whore-monger, child torturer reaches the end of his long life of debauchery, and simply decides to love Jesus and say he’s sorry (to whom? the victims of his crimes?) then he gets eternal bliss in paradise. This is not a just or good doctrine.
“Bible sometimes uses breath as a poetic synonym for life”
Ah, yes, the believer claims to own the “correct” interpretation of the Bible! Believers often object when you quote the sordid or contradictory parts of the Bible. They claim that you are selectively using portions of the Bible to support some point you want to make. In fact, this is exactly what everyone does, including these same believers. The believer purports to have the right interpretation, such as when it shouldn’t be taken literally. That is: they claim special knowledge of the Bible and special right to interpret it. I’ve read the entire Bible, which I find few believers have. I was raised in the Christian tradition. I’ve studied many other religions. I’m quite literate and intelligent. I see no reason to credit a believer’s opinion on the text above my own. If the Bible were clear, we wouldn’t have this 2000-year+ long argument over what it means.
An all-powerful, all-knowing God certainly could have come up with a: better, clearer, more explanatory, more arrestingly unique, way to communicate THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTS OF LIFE (by Christian lights) to a species that he is purported to LOVE. A single truly profound and verifiable prediction about the world as we know it would go light-years towards making the Bible believable. Accurate prediction of a single eclipse in the 21st century. Explanation of any of Hilbert’s 23 problems (God is certainly purported to be able to solve them.) I could list many other fine candidates. The fact is that the Bible provides no information that wouldn’t have been accessible to an iron-age peasant. (There is plenty in the Bible that is obscure and not really intended for peasants to understand – need to keep those priests employed – so adding in a math proof or two would be no big deal.)
Peter Medawar (The Hope of Progress, 1974): “[N]o one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief.” This neatly crystallized thought should be obvious to all. Why is all sophistry from believers so opaque (Read a few theologians!)? Incompentence or malice, one or the other.
The Bible does not provide a moral guideline for me, nor do other religions/holy books. My observations of religious people and atheists does not indicate a superior morality in religious people. I personally know many atheists and all of them lead fine, moral lives, while firmly rejecting religion. All cultures have a version of the “golden rule.” This comes directly from empathy and the evolutionary advantages that humans in societies derive (and derived) from cooperation. Studies of human behavior (actual data) are consonant with this explanation. They also explain why “cheating” (bad behavior) is a constant threat to a cooperating group. Though it’s now a bit out of date, I recommend Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue.
Morality is not derived from the ten commandments of Exodus: These ones have nothing to do with morality (rather, with religious practice for followers of a jealous god): “Then God spoke all these words: 1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. 3. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work–you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.” (How is just or good to punish descendants for the offenses of their ancestors?)
And these ones are refer to thought-crimes (we know how good and just thought crime enforcement is): “9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. 10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
These ones: “5. You shall not murder. 6. You shall not commit adultery. 7. You shall not steal. 8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Are all covered by, “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you” (the “golden rule”). Or even more simply: do no harm. Harm is understood through empathy. As noted previously, all cultures have some form of this, including those who have (or had) never seen a Bible. (All Bible quotes: Exodus 20:1-17, NIV)
The fourth commandment describes typical useful social practice by humans everywhere.
All the best, JB
Piltdown Madman :
so you are in for another civil war, aren’t you.
Batshit crazy.
Greetings!
To Piltdown:
(/Syndrome)
You sir, really are Mr Untenable!
I mean, hiding from morality behind the bones of a dead manuscript? I’m totally geeking out about that!
*happy sigh*
But then, you had to go and ruin the ride…
(/!Syndrome)
I just want to point out that being pro-choice and Christian are not mutually exclusive. It is possible, and very common, to be both. Any Christian who says that people who are pro-choice aren’t ‘real’ Christians is being arrogant and presumptuous enough to judge something that only God is capable of judging.
In the 90s, I had to go to a well-known ‘abortion’ clinic in California, who were experts at 2nd trimester D & E’s. I was obviously pregnant, but the fetus had died and I didn’t miscarry.
I have NEVER in my life been more scared (and I’ve hitchhiked in Mexico!). Not only did I have raving lunatics screaming at me as I was entering and leaving the building, I was expecting any number of bombs, shootings, etc.
And a week after I took a friend to a Melbourne, Australia clinic, some kook shot and killed someone at the clinic.
I don’t even know what else to say – I get so furious reliving these events!
“Not everyone is a liberal. Why should we live by your rules?”
No one is making you, or any one in your family or religion have abortions!
The ‘rules’ we would like to have is that each individual has a choice. You people don’t have to have abortions, and should be supported in your choice.
And I would bet a dollar to a donut that you support the death penalty, even though a significant (I would say 100%) percentage do not deserve to be executed.
“Not everyone is a liberal. Why should we live by your rules?”
No one is making you, or any one in your family or religion have abortions!
The ‘rules’ we would like to have is that each individual has a choice. You people don’t have to have abortions, and should be supported in your choice.
And I would bet a dollar to a donut that you support the death penalty, even though a significant (I would say 100%) percentage do not deserve to be executed.
I have never been gladder to have a pro-woman president as I am now. Wow.
“Not everyone is a liberal. Why should we live by your rules?”
That’s the beauty of it. Liberal means you’re free to do what you like within the confines of the law. On the opposing side, all must live by the same rules, decided by a small, out of touch minority.
I’d rather make my own choices.
“I have never been gladder to have a pro-woman president as I am now”
And sec of state. Her speech was beautiful music to my ears.
“Abortion is more of a grey area.”
I love that a MAN who will never, ever get pregnant says that abortion is “more ofa grey area.”
Hahahahahaha.
No.
It’s not your body, is it? Nope. Stay away from it. Yet again, you call yourself a libertarian but have no fucking idea what it means.
“and privacy of one’s personal life, ”
Oh, except of course, when it comes to a woman’s right to choose. Then of course, abortion should be illegal! Yay! We should totally dehumanize and criminalize women for making decisions about their body! Because of course women are too stupid to make such decisions themselves, and we have to have you men around to make such important, big decisions, otherwise we just may make the wrong choice!
And, Endor, we have some good news!
http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/01/roe-anniversary-gift.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267481436808735.html
:)
I respect his decision to not do it yesterday. Too many emotions running wild and to be honest, it could have been dangerous.
Also, it’s telling that a MAN ran into a family planning unit in protest of abortions, considering he will never, ever have the possibility of getting pregnant.
Fuckin’ A, I’m tired of men trying to make decisions about my body!
It’s not much better when a woman does it, either, but somehow it’s worse when a man does it. Ugh. Women who want to take away my right to choose have NOT thought it through. It is ILLOGICAL to make abortion illegal! ILLOGICAL! Anyone who is for making abortion illegal is lacking some brain cells. We can’t even keep illegal drugs from being used or sold! IT IS KNOWN THAT IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, MANY WOMEN WILL STLL OBTAIN THEM, OR DO DIY ABORTIONS, WHICH IS DANGEROUS, and anyone who is for making abortions illegal is pro having women die unnecessarily. PERIOD.
The end. I am done with my rant. PS, Walton is not a libertarian, despite his best efforts at pretending to be.
Woody @ 36 and SHV who were already upset with Obama since he hadn’t rescinded the “Mexico City Policy” all of two days into his presidency: He’s doing that today, three days into it.
Perhaps you could try to be a little more patient in the future?
BTW, he won’t be able to fix the economy by this weekend. Just thought you should know…
WHAT!?!?!?
Start the impeachment!
@22 & 23: You have managed to nearly completely sum up my feelings regarding the pro-birth nutjobs, The only thing I would add is that they (the pro-birthers) had better not be using any sort of medical interventions or technology to improve their fertility, either. If your god made you barren that’s his/her will and you’d better take it up with him/her (i.e. pray.)
I just posted this another thread but felt it was also relevant here.
Obama ends funding ban for abortion groups abroad
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday will lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, an administration official said.”
It so strange to hear executive orders being used for positive results instead of suppressing factual information and tossing political red meat.
Marilove,
I’m not going to fall into the trap of flinging insults. You’re clearly not interested in having a reasoned discussion, so this will be my last response to you.
Firstly, I call myself a “libertarian” because it is the label that best fits, not because I accept every single thing that every self-described “libertarian” believes. As with any political ideology, its adherents disagree, legitimately and in good faith, as to what is and isn’t libertarian (just as socialists disagree as to what is and isn’t socialist). Your attitude is essentially founded on the No True Scotsman fallacy. I point out that there is a group called Libertarians for Life (and, indeed, a group called Feminists for Life, but I won’t go into that); your answer boils down to “ah, but no true libertarian opposes abortion”.
For me, the basic principle of libertarianism is freedom from coercion by force or fraud. The proper role of government, in a free society, should centre around protecting people from the initiation of force, protecting people’s right to private property, and enforcing freely-negotiated contracts. It follows from this that government should not legislate morality; so there is no legitimate argument for the prohibition of same-sex marriage, for instance.
This does not, however, provide a clear answer to the question of abortion – because if a foetus is presumed to be a human being (which I realise is a polemical assertion), it must be protected from the initiation of force. Of course, where a woman has become pregnant through no choice of her own, it can equally be argued that the foetus’ use of her body constitutes coercive interference with her bodily autonomy and that she has a right to defend herself against it by aborting the foetus. I understand this argument, and respect it. But the fact that I have slight qualms about it does not make me a fake libertarian.
I also want to say that I am fed up with the amateur psychoanalysis that seems to infect any political discussion where sex and gender are brought up. My stance has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. It has nothing to do with wanting to control women, or with believing women to be inferior in some sense.
Finally, I should clarify that we are actually arguing over a tiny, tiny aspect of abortion policy. I don’t subscribe to the silly dogma that “life begins at conception”; a blastocyst or embryo is not in any sense a person, and its rights, if any, are outweighed by those of the woman. I therefore can’t raise any legitimate objection to abortions during the first trimester. And since – as you yourself have correctly pointed out – late-term abortions are very rare, and most are performed for essential medical reasons, we are really only disputing a tiny number of cases. So I don’t really understand the hostility.
Aaaaand, once again, they are not real libertarians, and they are not real feminists, period, end of discussions.
Thanks, man, with a penis who will never get pregnant, for telling us women what we should do with our bodies! You are a poor excuse for a libertarian.
Uh, yes, yes it does. When you want to start taking away the rights of women, and taking away their ability to make their own choices about their own bodies you DO believe they are inferior to you (otherwise, wouldn’t you allow them to make their own decisions?) and you DO want to control them (otherwise, wouldn’t you allow them to make their own decisions?).
Advocating making abortion illegal is illogical, anti-women, and disgusting. Period. (And to add, you can be personally, morally, and religiously against abortion FOR YOUR SELF — which men, quite frankly, can’t be, since they *can’t get pregnant* — without wanting to make abortion illegal, thus … that would make you pro-choice. This is a general “you” since I gather Walton, from past discussions, wouldn’t mind if abortion was made illegal.)
This is a general “you” since I gather Walton, from past discussions, wouldn’t mind if abortion was made illegal.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I’ll repeat it here:
I should clarify that we are actually arguing over a tiny, tiny aspect of abortion policy. I don’t subscribe to the silly dogma that “life begins at conception”; a blastocyst or embryo is not in any sense a person, and its rights, if any, are outweighed by those of the woman. I therefore can’t raise any legitimate objection to abortions during the first trimester, or probably even the second. And since – as you yourself have correctly pointed out – late-term abortions are very rare, and most are performed for essential medical reasons, we are really only disputing a tiny number of cases. So I don’t really understand the hostility.
I have never advocated banning abortion outright. I just don’t subscribe to the extreme view that a woman has an absolute, inexorable right to abort a pregnancy at any stage whatsoever.
“I just don’t subscribe to the extreme view that a woman has an absolute, inexorable right to abort a pregnancy at any stage whatsoever. ”
Oh, I see, so you want to control women and control their decisions on their own body. SURPRISE!
Walton, you said you “really don’t understand the hostility.” Well, try for a moment. Imagine yourself in a country where a large and vocal and politically connected segment of the population is advocating against any form of health care. Suppose they believe that any type of medical intervention is interfering with God’s plan, and that anyone who is sick or injured should simply pray for healing. Doesn’t matter if you were in a car accident, if you have AIDS, or if you have a kid with an earache– doctors shouldn’t be playing God, they’d say.
You would feel hostile towards those people, especially if you were sick or injured or if you had family or friends who needed medical care and were in danger of being denied access to it. You would speak out against them and argue that they should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want medical care, but they shouldn’t deny that option to others.
Now do you understand the hostility?
Jessica at #113:
I take your point. And yes, on reflection, I was wrong to say that I “don’t understand the hostility”; what I meant was that I don’t understand Marilove’s personal antipathy towards me, when I am not arguing for an outright ban on abortion.
A problem with your analogy is that objections to abortion are not solely based on religious morality. However, can I suggest a better analogy, which still supports your position? Imagine a country in which a substantial segment of the population opposed the use of any medical treatment which had been tested on animals – i.e. the majority of modern medicine – and wanted to ban the use of such treatments, regardless of how many human lives were lost. There are people who seriously advocate this. And in a sense they have a point; animal testing is cruel. But we prioritise – rightly, I believe – saving human lives over the interests of animals. You could, equally, argue – and I suspect you are arguing – that we should, and must, prioritise saving women’s lives over the interests of the foetus. And, in the vast majority of cases, I think you’re probably right.
I am not an “anti-choicer”. I’m a sort of “pro-lifer” in that I think abortion is a human tragedy. But I would not ban abortion in the first or second trimesters; even in the third, it should be allowed if needed to save the woman’s life (which is the reason for the vast majority of late-term abortions anyway, as some people here have correctly pointed out). I want to make my position clear.
“when I am not arguing for an outright ban on abortion.”
Do you honestly think that not arguing for an outright ban means nothing you’ve said isn’t offensive, wrong and not baiting anger?
As I said before, you’ve treated this issue like it’s merely an academic exercise. This is something that directly affects some of the people you’re talking to, and yet that doesn’t seem to sink through your skull. When you treat the very people you’re talking to as inconsequential baby incubators – REPEATEDLY – you’re damn right they’re going to get angry.
“I’m a sort of “pro-lifer” in that I think abortion is a human tragedy.”
Oh, please. If you cared at all about “human tragedy”, you couldn’t possibly be pro-forced birth.
As I said before, you’ve treated this issue like it’s merely an academic exercise.
And as I said before, right here and right now it is an academic exercise. Our discussion on the Internet is not going to make a blind bit of difference to any jurisdiction’s policy on abortion. I’m just a student, and I’m not arrogant enough to believe that anyone in a position of power gives a damn what I think about abortion, or anything else. So this is just an intellectual exercise – between people who don’t know each other – as is virtually every discussion that takes place on any online forum.
I can’t, in good conscience, apologise for stating my reasoned opinion about this issue. Yes, I’m aware that it will piss some people off. I can’t help that. If I said something different (or even said the same thing but phrased it slightly differently) in another forum, the hardcore pro-life crowd would attack me with just as much fervour as you have. The only way to maintain peace and harmony on this matter would be for everyone to avoid ever discussing abortion unless they’re already in complete agreement on the issue – which I presume you wouldn’t advocate?
Piltdown wrote:
Newsflash: Yes we are.
God is nothing but a construct of human imagination, so in this sense, we are gods. That’s why despite vain attempts to claim otherwise, gods invariably take on human physical and psychological traits. We can’t help but anthropomorphize gods, because they are simply creations of our minds, and reflect our own desires and wishes.
Don’t you know that?
Fergy: Short answer, yes, with an “if”; long answer, no, with a “but”.
Hello all , I just bought http://www.righttoalife.com (no content yet, obviously), in case anyone wants to help out with building a site with that general theme (that quality of life and free choice in making life trump making life for life’s sake).
I still think it was Christ-Queda, not the geese, that brought down the USAirways flight in the Hudson river last week.
Walton, don’t you get it? The only reason to advocate banning abortion AT ALL is because you don’t trust women to make the decision on their own. The only reason to make a ban of ANYTHING is becuase you don’t trust people not to do it. Thereofre, if you say, “No abortions for YOU!” you’re basically saying, “We don’t trust that you’ll make the right decision, so we’re making it for you!”
Making a ban on abortion for any reason whatsoever takes away the right for a woman to choose for herself.
Abortion is a medical procedure. Period. Yet it’s not being treated as such, and that is disgusting.
And if someone is anti-choice and an atheist, I’d say that person has a hatred toward women.
“And as I said before, right here and right now it is an academic exercise.”
Guess what, Walton? It is NEVER just an “academic exercise” for women! Every day there are people advocating to take away our rights. Every fucking day. And half the time, they succeed! Each day it seems like we have less and less rights. Each day it seems like yet another state is advocating to take away a woman’s right to choose.
This is not just an academic debate, and the fact that you think it is just goes to show how little you really know, and how little you try to look at it from a woman’s point of view.
The only reason to make a ban of ANYTHING is becuase you don’t trust people not to do it. Thereofre, if you say, “No abortions for YOU!” you’re basically saying, “We don’t trust that you’ll make the right decision, so we’re making it for you!”
With that logic, you might as well say that there’s no reason to ban the murder of small children, since we can trust their parents to “make the right decision” about whether or not to kill them. And, indeed, you might as well argue that there’s no reason to have any law at all.
Ordinarily, as a libertarian, I am all for letting people do whatever the hell they want with their own lives. It’s none of my business. But we do, generally, recognise a duty to intervene where it’s necessary to protect children from their parents’ choices. We must trust adults to make their own choices for themselves; but the law sometimes has to step in when they’re making choices for someone else, and when that someone can’t stand up for him- or herself.
Take the subject of another recent thread: the Neumanns, the couple whose diabetic child died after they decided to use “faith healing” rather than seeking treatment. Should they be prosecuted? According to a logical extension of your view, no; we ought to “trust” them to “make the right decision”.
Abortion is a medical procedure. Period.
If by “medical procedure” you mean that it’s performed by medical professionals, then yes. But by that definition, so is lethal injection.
Each day it seems like yet another state is advocating to take away a woman’s right to choose. – I’m not American. I live in the UK, where there are no current plans to change abortion laws. Therefore, unless you’re British (which I doubt) or planning on moving to the UK, there is absolutely no way in hell that my personal opinion can have any effect on your “right to choose”. If you don’t want to discuss it with me, then feel free to stop.
Re libertarianism….
Americans seem to equate libertarians with the Libertarian Party or something, which I think is rather right wing, from what little I know.
I think of a libertarian/authoritarian axis as orthogonal to right wing/left wing, and I don’t think I’m alone. I took some on-line quiz once which put me in the left-libertarian quadrant… along with the Dalai Lama amongst others. I think the Libertarian Party in the US would be in the right-libertarian quadrant. I don’t think I would agree with them on much when it comes to policy, except that we would agree to question authority a lot. And no, I’m not so far from the origin on that graph to be an anarchist… they’re nuts.
With that logic, you might as well say that there’s no reason to ban the murder of small children, since we can trust their parents to “make the right decision” about whether or not to kill them. And, indeed, you might as well argue that there’s no reason to have any law at all.
Abortion =/= killing children. Stop making that false analogy.
But we do, generally, recognise a duty to intervene where it’s necessary to protect children from their parents’ choices.
Once again, aborting a fetus =/= killing a child.
Take the subject of another recent thread: the Neumanns, the couple whose diabetic child died after they decided to use “faith healing” rather than seeking treatment. Should they be prosecuted? According to a logical extension of your view, no; we ought to “trust” them to “make the right decision”.
Neglecting to provide adequate medical care to a child =/= abortion. Man, you sure love false anologies!
If by “medical procedure” you mean that it’s performed by medical professionals, then yes. But by that definition, so is lethal injection.
And it’s a medical procedure that the woman should have full-say on. Her doctor may give her advice, but in the end, ONLY the woman should decide what is done to HER body.
@Ouchimoo #9:As someone that’s volunteered to escort women into an OB/GYN clinic that performs abortions, yes, most of them are pretty nuts.
I’ve had to step in front of bricks, rocks, and other various less pleasant objects that were chucked at a pregnant woman…Or a woman that just wanted a fucking pap smear or birth control pills, since I’ve never seen an actual “abortion clinic”. What I’ve seen were OB/GYNs and the like that happened to perform abortions. There may be actual abortion clinics, but I’ve never seen one…So most of the women coming in weren’t coming to have an abortion. They were just there to see a doctor about some problem or another. Then they get the added problem of a bunch of facist assholes throwing stuff at them.
The cops typically don’t give too much of a shit either, since they’re usually religious authoritarians themselves. So they don’t really bother with whoever threw the stuff.
Basically, had the guy rammed the clinic and driven off he’d probably be ok. His mistake was continuing to ram it and getting out of his vehicle, thus making it impossible for the police to pretend they couldn’t find him. On the rare occassion someone does get arrested for their protest getting a little too violent, they get a slap on the wrist.
After all, they do it in the name of Jesus. Ten bucks says he walks.
Wowbagger @81:
It’s the job of the Church’s magisterium to pronounce on matters of biblical interpretation. Where the magisterium is silent, we are free to interpret it as we think best, provided such interpretations do not contradict established doctrine & provided we are willing to abandon such interpretations should the magisterium make a future pronouncement to the contrary.
I would rather say He permits the natural processes which can result in such deaths.
The fact that the magisterium of the Church has condemned abortion.
The bit of research you linked to compares adolescent (not total) abortion rates in the US with three (no more) European countries in the context of a generalized assertion that contraceptive services are harder to come by in the US (all of the US??) than in those three European countries.
A more interesting comparison would be between abortion rates before and after the liberalization of contraceptive services in all those countries.
Well, as you say, it was Moses, not God, who ordered the slaughter of the Midianite women and male children in this case. It’s true God does not condemn his decision — but it doesn’t follow that God has thereby, through the Bible, given us carte blanche to go around slaughtering women and children. Moses’ decision was arguably justifiable given the exigencies of warfare and survival in the Ancient Near East, but whatever one’s views about that, you cannot simplistically extrapolate general divine approval from particular divine approval.
+++
Walton @85:
Sorry to hear that, Walton, but you will appreciate one has to tell the truth as one sees it.
Deism is just a staging-post on the way to atheism — In 1517 Martin Luther said “yes” to God and Christ, but “no” to the Catholic Church. In 1717 Freemasonry said “yes” to God, but “no” to Christ and the Catholic Church. In 1917 Lenin said “no” to God, Christ and the Catholic Church.
The real problem with sola scriptura is that it’s not in Scripture.
Aside from the issue of how much of this “history” is black propaganda, the fact remains that papal infallibility is carefully circumscribed and does not imply papal impeccability.
The Church doesn’t sprinkle magic dust on people to “make them good”. Mother Church sets forth a code of morality which she claims is divinely inspired and exhorts her children to live by it. She admits this is not an easy task, given our fallen human nature. Hence she provides access to sacraments by which people are able to obtain the supernatural graces necessary to strengthen themselves spiritually for the struggle. If Catholics faithfully partake of the sacraments and strive to amend their lives, the whole tenor of society can be elevated.
But she can’t force anyone to avail themselves of these aids — baptised Catholics (including the Pope) are free to reject these graces and sin. If they do so willfully and habitually, they risk depriving their souls of sanctifying grace and falling into mortal sin. So much the worse for them — our Lord left us in no doubt about that: “That servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required.” Look at medieval depictions of the Last Judgement and you will see priests, bishops, cardinals and popes prominent among the damned.
It’s a sad fact that the dominant culture of the modern world militates against living a holy life — politically, economically and morally. Temptations to sin are numerous (often state-sanctioned) and scandalous derelictions are all too common.
It doesn’t follow that the Church’s moral code is false. The Ten Commandments etc are not invalidated by the mere fact that numerous faithless Christians ignore them. As Jesus said of the Jewish hierarchy of His own day: “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” In other words, do as I say, not as I do!
The function of a lighthouse is to warn ships away from the rocks. If an arrogant, foolish or drunken sailor ignores that warning and runs aground, it’s not the fault of the lighthouse.
The Church provides infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals. Catholics believe the Holy Ghost safeguards this infallible teaching function (magisterium), protecting it from error. This doesn’t mean a pope can’t be a sinner. What it means is that a pope or Ecumenical Council can never issue formal dogmatic pronouncements that contradict previous dogmatically defined truths. If a pope were to solemnly declare that Jesus was not divine after all, or that murdering the innocent was suddenly OK — then we would have a real credibility problem. The lighthouse keeper would have extinguished his own lamp.
In that case one might conclude that the Holy Ghost’s guidance had failed and that the Church’s claims to divine teaching authority were therefore false. (Or one might conclude that the pope who made these pronouncements was not in fact the pope at all but an antipope unlawfully occupying St. Peter’s Throne, and hence not covered by the charism of infallibility. This is the “sedevacantist” hypothesis, which basically holds that the real lighthouse keeper is bound and gagged in a cupboard while a dastardly imposter lures hapless mariners on to the rocks.)
Historically speaking, I would say that the Church’s civilizational track record is pretty good …
You’ve got it ass about tit. The Roman Catholic Church is not a “sector” of “society” with “sectarian beliefs”. The Church is the Kingdom of God upon Earth, whether or not she’s a minority. She has been authorized by Christ to teach all the nations of the world. The sectarians of modernity have rejected her teaching authority and set about imposing man-made laws which are contrary to God’s Law, hence dooming themselves to disintegration. The Church has zero coercive power nowadays and can no longer call upon the secular power to forcibly prevent society’s rush towards the abyss; all she can do is speak the truth and people hate this nagging bad conscience who insists that God is not mocked.
Walton @90:
Ever heard of distributism?
+++
Wowbagger @81:
True (although I daresay many zealous population controllers would dearly love to have the power to implement a Chinese-style forced abortion/sterilization programme).
Even so, it is wrong to say that liberal society is some kind of ideology-free ‘neutral zone’ that doesn’t impinge on believers’ lives. Never mind oppressive state-supported measures against (for example) anyone who openly expresses disapproval of homosexuality; that is a marginal issue. The whole edifice of liberal democracy is founded upon a series of highly tendentious ideas (such as sovereignty of ‘the people’) which are sold as being “self-evident” and which were put in place by a series of more or less bloody cultural revolutions.
No matter what American politicians may say, Christianity can never be a matter of “private belief” hermetically sealed off from the public life or the political process: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him.” – St Pius
+++
marilove @103:
Insane. We’re losing the war on drugs — therefore legalize drugs. In Britain, police are losing the war on knife crime — should we therefore legalize stabbings? These wars are being lost because there is no will to win them & that’s because the “authorities” are rotten with liberalism. Automatic death penalties for drug smugglers and drug dealers and a public whipping or spell in the stocks for drug users who commit lesser drug-related crimes, and the war would be on the way to being won.
Pilty showing us his ignorance again. What else is new.
Piltdown, I apologise. It was unfair of me to say that you accelerated my move away from orthodox Christianity; on reflection, it was a process that begun long before I arrived at Pharyngula. I didn’t mean it.
I’ll comment on the substantive content of your lengthy (and erudite) post later.
Marilove:
Abortion =/= killing children. Stop making that false analogy.
Like I keep saying, this is the heart of the matter: when does a foetus become a child? When does it cease to be a parasitic bundle of cells, and become a born human being worthy of love and protection? How do you know where the line ought to be drawn?
Has it occurred to you that what you claim is nothing more than childish gobbledygook, invented by those whose livelihood depends on others believing and then repeating this foolish nonsense?
Walton, very easy. There is point nobody argues about, even the pro-choice people. When the fetus becomes a baby by taking its first breath outside of the womb. Period, end of story. Anything else is sophistry. Don’t make things any harder than you have to. Get away from the words and look at the facts.
physically, when it’s no longer physically attached to the mother, and becomes a separate being(thus no longer being a parasite on her, since it can be cared for by anyone now). emotionally, whenever a woman begins to love it and want to protect it. abortions in free societies are generally not performed on human spawn after it reaches either of those points
Like I keep saying, this is the heart of the matter: when does a foetus become a child?
And like you keep ignoring, no, it is not the heart of the matter. It is an illogical appeal to emotion devised by the forced-birth activists to obscure the heart of the matter, which is in fact: are women to be considered fully empowered adult members of society with control over their own bodies and who should be allowed to direct their own medical care?
You, and Piltdown, say no, they are society’s means for breeding the next generation, a duty too sacred and important to allow the poor creatures to take care of themselves. It’s scumbaggery of the highest order, and in your mouth, it goes to show what an execrable lie is the term “Libertarian.” Piltdown’s an authoritarian scumbag, but at least he can admit it.
Fergy @131:
Has it ever occurred to you?
Nerd of Redhead @132:
Somebody should tell Professor Peter Singer.
Pilty, I don’t care about Singer. Like you he is irrelevant to the discussion. All professions have assholes.
Not alone. Stupid and/or ignorant.
Stupid.
Ya think?
Oh, well, of course. Democratic socialists are such authoritarians, and corporate worshippers are so anti-authoritarian. You’re so very pro-freedom…Not.
Idiot. Why don’t you state an actual, substantive position on something, you fucking moron?
Piltdown wrote:
You mean people – people, human beings like you and me (okay, more like you), who claim some special quality which allows them to adjudicate whether or not their god would like it.
How is that different from people who say that abortion is okay? The only way for your people to be able to make the claim of righteousness is by showing they do, in fact, have divine inspiration that others do not.
So, can you do that? The historical claims of your particular flavour of Christianity are not, by the way, enough. That’s evidence for one thing – the existence of the Catholic Church – and one thing only.
So, you can guarantee me that no Catholic has ever had an abortion? Or are the teachings of the magisterium open to interpretation?
What’s the birth rate of Italy, by the way? Surely with all those Catholics and being the home of the Vatican and all, it should be more babies per capita there than anywhere else in the world. Is that the case?
It was what I found in approximately 20 seconds of Googling. I included the link to illustrate just how easy it is to find the information. If you can provide a similar link to support your claim then feel free.
Er, how about ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’? If God truly has a special dislike of killing of infants, pregnant women and fetuses, Moses and co. would have been punished; there are many instances in the bible where God directly intervened to show his displeasure in the actions of his people – in Exodus, when the Israelites made the graven images, God himself ordered them punished.
So, we have evidence that God directly punishes the things he does not like – just ask Lot’s wife. That he did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Numbers, or punished the Israelites for it, is tacit approval of their actions.
And ‘arguably justifiable’ is introducing a level of subjectivity – meaning that we are allowed to pick and choose what we do and don’t have to adhere to when it suits us.
Why is abortion any different? Oh, that’s right – some of your people say so. Funny thing, subjective interpretation.
You have examples of this? Where are people being oppressed for disapproving of homosexuality? I suspect you’re confusing (willfully, as usual) thoughts with actions – people are free to disapprove of homosexuality; they just aren’t allowed to punish or limit the freedoms of homosexuals because they are homosexuals.
As opposed to the Catholic Church, which has never in any way been involved in any violent struggle, uprising, revolution or conflict. [cough] Thirty Years’ War. [cough]
Wrong. It can and (fingers crossed) one day it will. There are plenty of successful secular countries out there; there’s no good reason why the US shouldn’t go the same way.
What’s preventing it is the kicking and screaming of those whose livelihoods (i.e. bilking money from credulous people) depend on it and those amongst the religious community who believe they have a God-given right to interfere in the lives of others.
But, as they say, you can’t stop progress. And the US now has someone who appears to be less likely to kiss fundamentalist ass. So they might well be making the first steps to a decrease in religious idiocy being given free reign.
And there are plenty of religious people who support secularism – mostly because they’re smaller, fringe groups with distinctly different beliefs from the mainstream religions. They’re well aware of what would happen if one religious denomination got into power.
I wonder precisely which Church’s historical actions towards people with dissenting or differing opinion they might be keeping in mind when they make that decision, Piltdown?
Though it’s not just the Catholics who killed other Christians en masse; it’s just they did it so much more thoroughly than anyone else. Guess that meant they really did have God on their side, huh?
Piltdown whined:
Sorry, little fella, your pathetic rejoinder is just that–pathetic. Science and rationalism aren’t “childish gobbledygook”, but religion invariably is. It really is that simple.
To add a bit more to my point, your question as to whether it has ever “occurred to [me] that human beings are naturally drawn to anthropomorphize God, because we are simply creations of His mind and can’t help but imperfectly reflect Him in Whose image we are made?”, the answer is no, it has never occurred to me. That’s not to say many people haven’t tried to convince me of this, but none have ever provided a single shred of evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
On the other hand, there is an ever growing body of research from a variety of hard and soft scientific fields that explain the phenomenon of religious belief, and none of them require the various superstitious beliefs actually be true.
Greetings!
Pilty said:
“The Church provides infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals. Catholics believe the Holy Ghost safeguards this infallible teaching function (magisterium), protecting it from error. This doesn’t mean a pope can’t be a sinner. What it means is that a pope or Ecumenical Council can never issue formal dogmatic pronouncements that contradict previous dogmatically defined truths. If a pope were to solemnly declare that Jesus was not divine after all, or that murdering the innocent was suddenly OK — then we would have a real credibility problem. The lighthouse keeper would have extinguished his own lamp.”
So, for instance, if one Pope were to say (officially) that Limbo exists, or that handing an apostate over to a secular force for the purpose of torture was a moral imperative, or that slavery was consistent with Christian morality, and then another Pope came along and said something else…
Then there would be a problem, yes?
Thank goodness none of this has happened, because if it did, that would utterly undermine the authority of the Church, if I read your opinion correctly.
And we care…why exactly?
Piltdown man screeched:
And not everyone is conservative, so why should we have to live by theirs? That’s the difference, no-one is mandating abortions (except me, abortions for all!) The position people are advocating is choice. That means if you don’t want to get an abortion, you don’t have to. No-one is forcing abortion on you. On the other hand the conservative position is to outlaw it for everyone, even those who have no problem with the practice.
Wowbagger @137:
The claim of the Catholic Church to be of divine origin & inspiration (which as far as I know is unique) is something everyone has to evaluate for himself. Boccaccio tells the story of a Jew who travels to Rome to check out the lifestyles of the pope and cardinals. After witnessing “abhominable luxurie … foule Sodomie … drunkards, belly-Gods, and servants of the paunch … like brutish beasts after their luxury …men so covetous and greedie of Coyne“, he concludes that no merely human institution could possibly survive such leaders and decides to convert to Christianity.
I don’t know the figures, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many Catholics nowadays contracept and abort at much the same rate as non-Catholics. What’s your point? The Church’s teaching remains clear. (As I said above, “The function of a lighthouse is to warn ships away from the rocks. If an arrogant, foolish or drunken sailor ignores that warning and runs aground, it’s not the fault of the lighthouse.“)
This for starters.
I didn’t dispute that; my point was that an instance of God condoning an action does not in itself indicate such actions are always and everywhere acceptable.
I’n not confusing thoughts with actions — I didn’t say oppressive measures were taken the disapproval but against the open expression of that disapproval.
I’m not going to post links because previous posts of mine which contained more than a couple of links have disappeared into the “comments pending” void, never to emerge. However a quick Google search will verify these examples:
– a group of Catholic firemen who refused to attend a gay march in Glasgow were disciplined and ordered to attend compulsory “diversity training”.
– an elderly Christian couple in Lancashire asked their local council if they could display Christian literature next to the council’s gay rights leaflets. Soon after, police officers turned up at their home and questioned them for 80 minutes regarding their views on homosexuality. The couple were warned that they were “walking on eggshells”.
– an evangelical Christian handing out leaflets at a gay and lesbian festival in Cardiff was arrested and charged with “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”. (The leaflets read “Turn from your sins and you will be saved.”)
I never claimed the Church has not been involved in violence. My point was simply that secular liberalism is not some kind of benignly neutral default position for the human race.
+++
Fergy @138:
Examples?
(BTW, is “soft science” anything more than a euphemism for “pseudo-science”?)
+++
Anri @139:
Nope, because the examples you give have never been defined as dogma binding on all Catholics (as far as I know).
Actually, secular liberalism _is_ a benignly neutral default position for humanity. Nice turn of phrase. It’s benign, in that your death is unlikely to be a goal of public policy, and it’s neutral, in that your ideas get to stand or fall on their own merits. Anything else is bias.
“Soft” science generally means “hard to quantify”, not “pseudo”.
No, creationism is a “pseudo-science”, from the Greek pseudos (“false, falsehood”).
If you don’t know what hard and soft sciences are, then any examples I provide will undoubtedly be wasted on you. You seem comfortable and proud in your religion-soaked ignorance, I recognize it immediately. You don’t want examples, you want attention. That’s the only reason you’re here, isn’t it, little fella?
Piltdown: The claim of the Catholic Church to be of divine origin & inspiration (which as far as I know is unique)…
You’re wrong there. The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is also believed, in his capacity as “Prophet, Seer and Revelator”, to be able to speak with divine authority when disclosing a “special revelation” from God. This power was used, for instance, to admit black people to the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods within the Church in the 1970s.
I’m sure there are other examples, but I’m not an expert on comparative religion.
Soft sciences include but are not limited to psychology and sociology. Pseudo-sciences include but are not limited to astrology, homeopathy and IDiocy. A professional in the former category would be rightly insulted to be compared to the latter.
Stephen Wells @143:
True enough – unless secular liberalism becomes secular zealotry, which could quite easily happen as liberalism is unwilling and unable to restrain the human passions.
Nonsense. Even theoretically, liberalism is about individual freedom, not institutionally enforced rationalism. In theory, it allows people to think, say and do whatever they want provided no one gets hurt – no matter how irrational. If enough of them embrace irrationalism, that irrationalism will have an impact on society, maybe even to the extent of destroying the secular liberalism that first gave it the imprimatur of tolerance for stupid ideas.
Is Christianity out of popular favour in Western liberal democracies because the citizens have soberly considered whether its claims stand up to reason? That seems questionable, given the immense popularity of every conceivable variety of New Age superstition. It’s more likely because Christianity sits less well with the hedonistic & individualistic tenor of society.
Walton @145:
No shortage of cult leaders have claimed to speak with divine inspiration, but we’re talking about an institution, one which is, moreover, a living link with the ancient world.
Glad to hear it. As someone once said, a study of comparative religion makes you comparatively religious …
@147: so, secular liberalism would be bad if it were not secular liberalism? That’s very clear. Thanks for that insight.
Alyson Miers @146:
I’m sure there are honest and scrupulous researchers working in the fields of psychology and sociology, but I’m equally sure there are many charlatans who just want to cover their naked ideology with the cloak of scientific respectability.
The American Sociological Association’s website proudly proclaims: “[sociologists] do not tolerate any forms of discrimination based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; or marital, domestic, or parental status.” Regardless of whether or not one agrees with this sentiment, what does this politically correct mantra have to do with a scientific discipline?
Stephen Wells @149:
No – secular liberalism is bad because it has no positive content beyond a vague Barney the Dinosaur-type optimism about human nature; hence it is inherently unstable and liable to mutate into or be conquered by more fearsome ideologies.
Piltdown @148, your sophist evasion doesn’t address Walton’s counter-example, nor does your facile quip add anything substantive.
How is not “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” qualitatively an institution, if the Catholic Church is?
Piltdown man wrote:
I’d say he converted because he realised he could get in on the action and not have to adhere to his own religion’s more rigid moral code – which is ironic, considering you also wrote this in the same post:
But hey, who can blame him? The Romans had to have had a good reason for taking Christianity on, and what better than a new & improved scam (or possibly scamola) to help them rule the world? It’s not like Jesus had a problem with hypocrisy, right?
What’s my point? It’s that while you’re saying that anti-choice campaigners should have the right to dictate what non-religious women should do with their bodies your own brothers-and-sisters in faith find it less than compelling to bother doing as the Church commands. Perhaps you and they should spend a little more time cleaning up your own backyard before it seeks to criticise the actions of others. ‘Let ye without sin cast the first stone’ and all that.
Interesting, but also limited in applicability beyond its small scope. Also, did you happen to read the final paragraph?
The Magisterium – let’s not start in on the problems caused by having a bunch of (hopefully) celibate men decide what people who are actually having sex should do regarding its consequences – would be shocked, shocked I tell you.
But isn’t the argument against a literal interpretation of the bible contingent upon its ability to provide us life lessons via metaphor? The message of that particular section is no less clear than any other part of the bible, and is bookmarked either side with God’s direct and indirect punishing of those who displease him.
People are ordered killed for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, yet infanticides and murderers of pregnant women are hailed as heroes. God’s message couldn’t be any clearer. As long as you slaughter in his name it’s all good.
Examples?
The difference is that creationism has NO honest and scrupulous researchers who aren’t trying desperately to cloak themselves with the veil of scientific respectability. Creationism is fundamentally about naked ideology, nothing more. But you probably knew that.
But back to my original point, which is that superstitious beliefs are a byproduct of human evolution, constructs of human imagination and language, and as such are actually evidence that the underlying claims by religions about their various gods are without basis. The sciences you are so quick to disparage actually have contributed useful research in this area–but then again, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, facts have a well known liberal bias…
The implications of this are huge, of course, which is why religious institutions and individuals fiercely attack evolution (as they did heliocentrism before that). Scientific advances directly threaten the very foundation of religion, which results in a rising cultural war between science and religion. Witness the intransigence of young earth creationism in the dominant desert religions, or the broad assault on science by a born again dry drunk in the White House.
And to answer your question (again), no, I’m not going to do your research for you, nor will I hold your hand to lead you to information that’s readily available. If you want to learn more, you can easily do so, but it’s clear you’re not here to learn, you’re here to push your silly religious beliefs and attendant theopolitical agenda. You fancy yourself a warrior for your religion, staunchly defending the childhood cocoon of ignorance and superstition. Believe me, we’ve seen it countless times before on this forum.
Fergy @154:
Can you explain to me how such naturalistic “explanations” of religion are in any meaningful sense scientific? Can they be subjected to repeatable experimental verification? Do they yield predictable results?
Any fool can conjure up a sociological, psychological or biological explanation of religion, but it’s all smoke and mirrors, airy speculation, unproved and unprovable.
And often radically contradictory. I was amused to come across an atheist website selling T-shirts with images of both Marx – who saw religion as a tool of the powerful to oppress the weak – and Nietzsche – for whom religion was manifestly a tool of the weak to undermine the powerful.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not denying that religion can and does perform many psychological and/or sociobiological ‘functions’. But these do not in themselves constitute evidence that religion is a mere byproduct of its own usefulness. Your error is to see such functions as the causes of religion rather than as its effects – as if one were to say that fire is caused by the use we make of it to warm, cook or burn.
No doubt someone else will broaden your horizons on what constitutes experimentation, Piltdown. Here’s a hint – it isn’t limited to what you can shake up in a test tube. Astrophysicists are scientists; do you think they get their hands on a lot of stars?
Anyway, I do offer this: how about the observation of the fact that distinctly different religions can be found amongst human cultures spread across the planet? The fact that many, if not all, cultures show evidence of the capacity for magical thinking indicates that it is an inherent human trait.
Scientific enough for ya?
Ah, but here’s the good part: the very diversity of the religions that magical thinking allowed those cultures to develop is similar evidence for the impossibility of there being one ‘true’ religion*; if that were the case they’d all have come up with the same god concepts.
And we know that’s not true. Heck, even you Christians can’t agree on much of anything.
*Well, unless there’s a Pantheon, which would a) make a lot more sense, and b) be much more fun than dull old monotheism, as I’ve probably mentioned before.
Hey, YOU’RE the one who believes we anthropomorphize gods because we were created in their image. It doesn’t get any more speculative, unproven, or unprovable than that, now does it?
Why is it that religiots have no problem accepting explanations about their gods made by goat herders during the Bronze Age, but refuse to acknowledge any modern day research into the sociological, neurological, and genetic bases of supernatural beliefs? (Hint: it often has to do with being brainwashed as a young child…)
Your analogy is as deeply flawed as your religious beliefs. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor?
You keep clinging to the claim that supernatural beings really exist (and not just any supernatural being, it’s your Jesus ™ brand God! He’s the one true god! He IS! He IS!)
But the evidence for such claims has never risen above zero in the entire history of humankind, while the evidence that supernaturalism is all in our heads grows ever higher. This doesn’t prove religion is a byproduct of evolution; one of the more interesting research questions today in evolutionary biology is whether superstitious beliefs are merely a byproduct or are a key force of human development. In either case, it still does not support any claim that supernatural beings actually exist. We’ll just have to leave that to the goat herders…
I see Pilty is still trying to tap dance to show his religion is meaningful to the modern world. It became useless quite a while back, and should be tossed into the garbage heap of history. Pilty, that is why you are irrelevant to our discussions, and trying to quote dogma as meaningful proves my point.
Eh, I find Piltdown’s stuff quite enjoyable to read, because he writes well and thinks his responses through. He’s also has a grasp on the intricacies of what it is he’s claiming – unlike that idiot facilis, who just parrots the crap he appopriates without having more than a cursory understanding of what any of it means.
I’m still relatively new to this whole business, and I like being exposed to all the different theistic arguments and rationales. And I’m sure there are other posters (and readers) who benefit from seeing ‘how the other half (well, four-fifths at least) live’ as well.
Ask me again in a few years, though, and I might think differently.
Fergy @157:
Hint: it may have something to do with the fact that Bronze Age goat herders, warriors and, yes, priests, had considerably more experience of the unchanging verities of life than any Plastic Age ___ologists who haven’t done a real day’s work in their lives.
Just a thought.
Hang on. When you say religious belief is not a product of the evolutionary process but a ‘key force’ which acts on that process (or contributes to it or shapes it or whatever) — do you mean that ‘key force’ exists independently of the evolutionary process? If so, where does that ‘key force’ originate?
+++
Wowbagger @156:
So what you’re saying is that every culture worships a god or gods, therefore there can be no god.
Every person has a sense of smell. Ergo, smells are purely an internal product of human biology or psychology. QED.
In other words, all religions can’t be true, therefore no religion can be true.
Imagine an examiner sets his students a mathematical problem. Imagine each student gives a different answer. Can we conclude from that fact alone that no student has managed to come up with the right answer? Or that there is no right answer?
+++
Wowbagger @159:
Actually I’m flying by the seat of my pants here.
Pilty: logic -you’re doing it wrong. Don’t try the analogy track, you’ll get run over by your own stupidity.
E.V. – Since you neglect to point out the flaw in my logic, I have to assume your remark is bluster.
Pilty: Logic’s Roadkill
Maybe should give Pilty and Facilis their own thread.
Good idea Nerd. The equivalent of a padded room or a sideshow.
“PZ’s Sanatorium for the Logically Impaired! Step right up ladies and gentlemen and see arguments that defy logic and reason! You will be amazed! Astounded! Yes, the 15th century lives on! Witness it now in PZ’s Sanatorium for the Logically Impaired.”
Hey, I didn’t say it was a firm grasp. And it’s not as if I’m an old hand at this sort of thing either.
Close, but no cigar. What I’m saying is that because every culture worships a different god then there can be no one god, unless that god is multifaceted and tolerates religious independence. And if that is the case, he wouldn’t approve of Christianity’s proclivity for forced conversions and sectarianism.
So, I can accept that there might be a god, but it certainly isn’t your god. Like I’ve said before, a pantheon of gods in competition for worshippers would be the best way to explain religion amongst humans being based on reality, but no-one, to my knowledge, makes that claim. They’re all fully convinced their god (or gods) is/are the only ‘real’ ones, and all others are false.
I’m not by anyone’s stretch of the imagination a mathematician, but I wouldn’t actually be surprised if there are circumstances where that’s true.
But within your analogy, at least, the key difference is you’ve got access to someone – the teacher – who can tell you whether the answer is correct or not, and explain to you why. With any of the gods I’m aware of the so-called ‘answers’ only ever lead to more questions*.
Oh, and the PTA probably wouldn’t approve of the teacher giving students detention for eternity if they couldn’t answer…
*Typically along the lines of: ‘are you fucking kidding me?’
Yes, a stupid thought, a nonsensical thought, a childish thought…
Lemme get this straight. Do you actually believe the idiotic idea that ancient people with little or no understanding of physics, biology or numerous other bodies of knowledge somehow magically understood the “unchanging verities of life” and that people today can’t because, well, I guess because us city folk are too durned ejicated and too durned lazy ain’t we? Is that what you’re claiming?
And I suppose your notion of the “unchanging verities of life” conveniently includes the certainty of existence of your biblical, capital “G”, Christian God. Who’da thunk it? Golly…
Of course, you’re not alone in your foolishness. That seems to be about the only supposed “evidence” anyone ever has for the existence of your imaginary father figure–because some old goat herders proclaimed it so, or as countless Christards love to mindlessly parrot, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
Pathetic.
I wondered whether you would try to take my comment out of context and hang that tired old creationist canard on it (there you go trying to cloak yourself in the veil of scientific respectibility…)
To answer your question, no, I don’t mean the key force exists independently of the evolutionary process, it IS the evolutionary process. In other words, does having superstitious beliefs bestow an evolutionary advantage directly, or is it the byproduct of another advantage. In either case, no imaginary father figure is actually required (or indicated), it’s just the mental process of supernatural belief and how it affects survival.
Honestly, I had hoped for more from you than this. You write better than most the Christards we get here, but that doesn’t seem to extend to having any clearer arguments or insights, or having much self awareness of just how foolish you sound. Just the same old Sunday school nonsense we’ve heard a hundred times before. Pity…
Fergy @167:
What I’m saying is that an “understanding of physics, biology or numerous other bodies of knowledge” does not in itself make one more qualified to pronounce on God’s existence than an unlettered peasant. God is not like some previously unknown type of bug or subatomic particle waiting to be ‘discovered’ by an enterprising scientist.
No, I’m not claiming scientific knowledge necessarily make one less qualified to pronounce on God’s existence than an unlettered peasant — it just so happens that the extraordinary material achievements of applied science in recent centuries have led many people to look to science for the “last word” on reality. They’re ill-educated, not over-educated.
The liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann famously said: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits”.
That statement is very hard to argue against, but only because it is not an argument at all. It is psychological — a mood, a feeling, an attitude which if it were actually articulated would go something like this:
“Wow, when I flick this switch a light comes on – this is because of technology – technology is because of science – science works – that means science is true – we are in control of nature thanks to science – I like being in control of nature because it makes my life comfortable – therefore everything scientists say on any subject must be true – scientists tell us nature is the totality of reality – therefore we are in control of the totality of reality thanks to science – wow that’s even better, perhaps I’ll be able to live forever – mustn’t listen to anyone who says any different!”
Yes that’s very hard to argue against, and that’s what I mean about being out of touch with reality.
But it’s interesting that a great many people are at the same time very uneasy about science – why else the need to institute an academic post for the public understanding of it? They hear about possibly irreversible environmental degradation caused by our modern industrial lifestyles, they see scary pictures of a human ear grafted onto a mouse’s back, they have vague unspoken fears about genetically modified foodstuffs and electrical devices causing cancers, they get pissed off and depressed at how frustratingly fallible computerised devices have replaced interaction with other human beings in so many areas of life . . . Perhaps they remember all those 1950s B-movies warning us about the dangers of scientific hubris.
You still haven’t explained how that mental process arose in the first place. In order for it to “bestow an evolutionary advantage”, a belief must first exist. To say the advantage is the explanation for the belief is to put effect before cause.
(Of course if you really believe that religion can be explained as a function of evolution, it makes no sense for you to argue that religion is untrue. From a Darwinian perspective, truth is irrelevant; the only criterion is whether this meme maximizes one’s chances of survival . To say that a religion is untrue would be as stupid as calling the shape of a bird’s wing untrue.)
The more ignorant you are about the universe, the more of it you’ll be tempted to attribute to supernatural causes. Pilty being a case in point, apparently.
Incidentally an explanation for the _survival_ of a belief in terms of the advantage it provides to those who hold it is definitely _not_ putting effect before cause.
Excellent. So you dismiss the discipline of theology and the field of apologetics, do you? Because, by your rationale, they are unneccessary. I do love it when we agree on things; congratulations, you’re showing potential.
Perhaps because there are active campaigns to lie about science and prevent its progress? This isn’t, of course, an approach taken only by Christians; there are plenty of other flavours of anti-science woo out there who know that science is their enemy and seek to limit how much damage it can do to their ability to
earn money and gain supportfleece suckers for cash and votes.How about magical thinking? It’s pretty straightforward. Combine that with some authoritarian, charismatic snake-oil salesman (or, on the odd occasion, a deluded-but-good-hearted charmer like the assorted people Christianity drew on to create the Jesus character) and abracadabra, here’s your religion.
It’s not like we don’t have recent examples that make no more sense to the rational than they do to you. How do you explain Mormonism, or Scientology? Or are they (and Christiantiy) equally genuine revelations?
Who says religion isn’t true? Of course religion is true; there are thousands of them, with buildings and offices and such. It’s what religions claim as truth that’s the scam (or possibly scamola).
I left too early evidently and got called out by Pilty.
The first example is a subjunctive syllogism. It depends on the argument that each religion is dependent on the rest of all religions to be false if only one can be the true religion. Each religion makes the claim that it is the only true religion. If A is true then B (through Z) is false, however it does not follow that if B (through Z) is false that A is true.
So the argument becomes “all religions may be false.” You can add to that the oldest (original) religion would have to be the true religion. The oldest religion no longer survives, then there is no true religion existent today. Then add the One can only prove to be the one true religion if there is proof of the existence of deity worshipped, and so on.
Your quiz analogy is a standard quiz, I assume, with a single correct answer. Each student’s answer, no matter if it is correct or not, has no effect on any other student’s answer. They can all be right OR wrong or any mix between the two and it doesn’t nullify the question or the validity of the answer. It’s a terrible analogy.
Silly rabbit…
It absolutely does make one more qualified to evaluate claims of this sort, just like scientists evaluated and then discarded the claim that the earth was the center of the universe (or that the earth is only 6000 years old). As our corpus of knowledge expands, many of the claims of earlier generations get invalidated through this process. We can evaluate the gods of those Bronze Age goat herders and decide whether or not they stand up to critical analysis based on our current knowledge of the universe. They don’t. Read Victor Stenger’s excellent book “God, the Failed Hypothesis” if you’re interested in learning more.
Then what is he?
(Nobody ever seems to be able to answer that…)
Gods aren’t waiting to be discovered, because there’s nothing to discover except for what I said earlier: gods are a product of human imagination, which is the only place they exist. For the sake of argument though, let’s ignore this for a moment.
The claims made by religionists about their gods are statements about the universe in which we live. As such, those claims are subject to the same standards of veracity as any others. The argument that religious claims are somehow exempt from this process is utter nonsense (“He doesn’t live in the material world, but He created the entire universe AND He knows whether you’ve been naughty or nice! He’s got a big white beard, but you can’t see Him and no scientist can prove He isn’t real! Oh, and He has a human son who was killed and then rose from the grave!”)
These claims can (and have) been examined, and generally fail even the most cursory look. About the only thing that they offer–and this is a big one–is that most of the claims are designed to be non-falsifiable. That’s the best religionists can hope for.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out. The more we discover about the universe, the more distant and vague gods have become. Gods used to live on mountain tops, but once all the peaks were reached by humans (and no gods were found atop them), they had to move into the clouds. Once the atmosphere was understood, they moved further out into space. Now that we understand more about space, gods now live nowhere in particular, they just “exist” independent of time and space (how’s that for vague?)
As opposed to what? Bronze Age mythology? Is that the “last word” on reality?
I suppose your solution would be to teach impressionable young children that “goddidit” is a perfectly good alternative to that evil theory of evolution. Maybe throw in a little alchemy and a bit of astrology for good measure…
Hold on, child. It’s not scientists who claim to hold the secret to living forever, it’s you religionists. You shout it endlessly with all the force and certainty you can muster. It’s one of your key selling points, “Praise Jesus! For only He holds the key to eternal life! Hallelujah!”
Talk about being out of touch with reality…
Oh, I don’t know…maybe because science actually IS an academic endeavor? And the public SHOULD understand it better? After years of funding cuts by conservative politicians, it’s no secret that our schools are struggling to provide a decent education in basic science and math.
Or how about this? Maybe it’s the millionaire televangelists who love to demonize science from their TV pulpits, exploiting a surefire way to extract even more money from the ignorant yokels who watch them. Could the forces of religion-induced ignorance be one reason it’s necessary to provide voices of science and reason? So our country doesn’t slide back into the Dark Ages?
It’s clear you don’t understand the rudimentary concepts of evolution, and I have no interest in trying to teach you. I suggest finding a good textbook on the subject–anything that isn’t endorsed by the Discovery Institute.
I never claimed that religions are untrue. They are the one of the oldest, most enduring businesses in human history (the priesthood being perhaps the second oldest profession).
It’s the claims of religions that are untrue. It’s the superstitions they sow in generation after generation that are untrue. It’s the books of ancient mythology that are untrue. It’s the gods and their human proxies that are untrue. The power of prayer, heaven and hell, eternal souls, life after death, and all the other nonsense. The list goes on and on.
Of course, once you realize this the whole house of cards collapses. There is no god, just little men hiding behind a curtain, frantically pulling large levers. Since the number one objective of any business or organization is self preservation, religions have become quite adept at finding ways to silence their critics, erecting impenetrable barriers around their rhetoric and mythos. Making it taboo to question them. They’ve had thousands of years to perfect this, and have been hugely successful at it.
On the other hand, I guess they never saw the Internets coming, did they…
EV @171:
Correct, obviously.
I never said it did.
A reasonable inference, but one that’s irrelevant to the point in question – namely Wowbagger’s claim that the incompatible diversity of religions is proof that they are – not “may be” – false.
A bizarre assertion. Why should the first religion be the true one? God can reveal what He chooses as and when He chooses.
You mean scientific proof? Hard or soft?
Fair enough – although you will recall that I said each student gave a different answer. In any case, the fact that the analogy breaks down there in no way invalidates the central point it’s intended to illustrate – that a diversity of answers does not in itself prove they’re all wrong.
Pilty, still irrelevant as ever. Maybe if he lost the religion…
Oh fucking give it up Pilt. You’re an equivocating goofball. It is fruitless to hash modal logic with you.
Er, Pilt, your own religion has the thesis that God spoke to people directly at first, and then slowly, over time, spoke less and less frequently, and then stopped. So obviously “earlier” implies “more likely to be God’s True Word™”, with “first” being “most likely”.
By your religions assumptions, anyway.
Seen any burning bushes lately?
Oh, this is funny!
Piltdown, I’m reminded of this:
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us/To see oursels as others see us” – Robert Burns.
Fair enough; I will restate my claim thusly: the diversity of religions is proof that no religion which claims there is only one god (or single pantheon of gods) can be true, unless the one god (or single pantheon of gods) is/are dishonest and manipulative to the point of malevolence.
Of course it’s possible there’s one god (or gods) who like to fuck with the human race for its (their) sick, twisted amusement – as I’ve said many times, this would make about a gazillion times more sense than the errant nonsense of the Judeo-Christian god. No more problem of evil, no more blathering about the ludicrous concept of free will.
But that isn’t the god you believe in, is it? Your god is defined as loving and just. So if there is a god, Pilty, it most certainly ain’t yours.
Pilt,
The only way I could salvage credits from the seminary was to minor in Philosophy all those years ago.
And one thing I know is that no matter how ecumenical a sect or denomination is toward other sects or religions, they are SURE that these religions are wrong. Protestants vs. Catholics vs. Church of Christ… Specifically, the Christians believe those of the jewish faith share the same god but that the Jews haven’t been “perfected” and therefore will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven&trade4, the same goes for Muslims because Mo was a false profit even if Allah is Yaweh.
Hindu, Zorastrians, Wiccans, Scientologists etc. ad infinitum, worship false gods according to those who believe in the Abrahamic deity. The reverse is true too, all other religions that are not Abrahamic religions believe every other religion harbors a false god and is patently false ipso facto.
So yes, those who practice religions that are based on a deity or deities hold all other religions to be false. SO if A is true, then B is false… (yadda, yadda, yadda)
Buona Notte
E.V.: I am not equivocating. You are indulging in irrelevant logic-chopping.
+++
Owlmirror @!76:
There are elements of truth in what you’re saying, but one would need to distinguish between primordial religious knowledge and later religious cult; one would need to recognize that revelation was not a single event but an ongoing process; and one would need to acknowledge the early emergence of false religions in competition with that ongoing process of revelation.
+++
Wowbagger @178:
It might indeed imply the action of a dishonest and manipulative agent – but why must we assume that malevolent agent is the one true God (or single pantheon of gods)?
+++
John Morales @177:
Pilty, your god doesn’t exist, which makes you delusional. Spare yourself further embarrassment by not posting here again.
Why would a “false” religion ever arise, though, if God was truly speaking to people directly?
Because if there were an honest and non-manipulative agent that were more powerful, it would, obviously, override the dishonest and manipulative one(s). That’s part of what it means to be honest and non-manipulative.
Or do you want to argue that there is an honest and non-manipulative God who is, alas, weaker than the Devil?
E.V. @179:
None of which I dispute and none of which is relevant – as far as I can see. I attempted to answer what I thought was the argument of your post #171 with my post #173.
Now, pace Brother Burns, I’m well aware of my intellectual limitations. Maybe my attempted rebuttal failed. Maybe it failed because I misunderstood what you were saying in #171.
But if so, you have yet to identify that failure. Instead you’ve simply regurgitated the first part of #171.
Wow. Piltdown, I wan’t using RB as an authority, I was borrowing his felicitous language to express to express a single sentiment.
E.V. @179:
None of which I dispute and none of which is relevant – as far as I can see.
I attempted to answer what I thought was the argument of your post #171 with my post #173.
Now, pace Brother Burns, I’m well aware of my intellectual limitations. Maybe my attempted rebuttal failed. Maybe it failed because I misunderstood what you were saying in #171.
But if so, you have yet to identify that failure.
Owlmirror’s already answered this in the way I was going to – if Satan exists and God either cannot or will not intercede to prevent him performing acts of malevolence which lead humans to suffer eternal torment then God is cannot be both omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
The only way you have of even coming close to winning on this point is to admit your God isn’t as he is defined by the broader Judeo-Christian belief system.
I see it as this: Christians foolishly painted a clear, definite picture of God. But knowledge of the universe and the wisdom to understand it is increasing humanity’s visual acuity – so apologists and their ilk have to keep blurring the focus so no-one can pick out the imperfections. But if you blur it so much that looking upon it has no effect, what’s the point?
Fergy @172:
All wrong since God is not a discrete object within the universe like a planet. The universe is like a thought of God which would cease to exist if He stopped thinking it. God does not exist in the universe; the universe exists in God.
You think medieval theologians believed God sat on a cloud?
I was manifestly talking about living for ever in this world, the secret of which no religion claims to hold (certainly not Christianity). Scientists, on the other hand, are more hubristic.
Maybe it’s the arrogance of those who refer to people as “ignorant yokels”?
It’s clear you’re unable to answer the question. Do you even understand it? Stephen Wells obviously didn’t when he wrote @169:
I wasn’t seeking an evolutionary explanation for the survival of religious belief. I was seeking one for the origin of such belief.
Your pedantry is just a feeble way of evading the point I was making. Let me rephrase it:
if you really believe that the claims of religion can be explained as a function of evolution, it makes no sense for you to argue that the claims of religion are untrue. From a Darwinian perspective, truth is irrelevant; the only criterion is whether this meme maximizes one’s chances of survival . To say that the claims of religion are untrue would be as stupid as calling the shape of a bird’s wing untrue
I did a cursory Google search for Victor Stenger and came across this priceless quotation:
“Then why is there something rather than nothing? Because something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing – more than twice as likely according to one calculation. We can infer this from the processes of nature where simple systems tend to be unstable and often spontaneously transform into more complex ones.
Sheesh.
Pilty, the universe doesn’t need your imaginary god to exist. It does quite well without him. In fact, god is not needed for anything. Why do you keep insisting you the unnecessary?
Such a pretty formulation, only slightly marred by being utterly incoherent. Except… you were just previously implying that Satan is given free run of the universe. How did that thought get inside of God’s head… unless it was always in there?
Wow! Your god is distant, vague, AND unfalsifiable! A trifecta! And the funny part is, you probably STILL think this mysterious being hears your prayers and knows when you’ve been naughty or nice. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
You’re living in a bad science fiction movie, child…
So, you found a couple crackpot scientists. That’s amazing! I guess that’s news because of course there are no crackpot religionists making outlandish claims, are there?
Oh, wait. YOU are making outlandish claims! Let’s review, shall we: “The universe is like a thought of God which would cease to exist if He stopped thinking it. God does not exist in the universe; the universe exists in God.”
Bingo…
Nope, sorry. I can’t respond to gibberish. If there is an actual point in what you’re trying to say, it sure isn’t make it through your keyboard. All I see is another confused attempt to shut out unpleasant reality as it impinges on your superstitious nonsense.
Let me add a bit more to that last point. I never said evolution provided absolute proof that religious beliefs are untrue, but it is a significant argument that these beliefs are a product of human imagination. If there is a genetic cause of religious belief, without any external corroborating evidence about those beliefs, it increases the likelihood that they are merely phantoms of the mind. In other words, it weakens religionists claims that their beliefs reflect any sort of external reality.
You seem to cling to the idea that religious beliefs–such as your outlandish (but not atypical) claims about the nature of your imaginary father figure–have a basis in reality and aren’t merely a product of your mind. But as countless before you, you have absolutely no evidence to offer to support that, other than an ancient book of myths and fables, full of inconsistencies and falsehoods.
I understand, I really do. Some people can escape the religious indoctrination they endured from an early age, but most cannot. I guess I’m an optimist and hope that religionists willing to visit a forum like this would do so with an open mind, but most do not.
And with that, I’m done arguing on this thread.