The Skeptic's Guide to The Universe

Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

My Predictions for 2011

If you really think about it, it makes no sense. It should be clear.
With the number of yearly predictions that physics and other soothsayers make each year I thought I would throw my hat into the ring and see what I can come up with.

These are in no particular order unless otherwise stated.

  1. Justin Beiber will be in a drug situation where he is forced to confess his mistake and then goes on the TV talk shows and then puts out an album that sells millions.
  2. NASA will announce that recent studies from Saturn and it's moon indicate an unusual phenomenon that Is best described as being created from an intelligent source.
  3. Also a planet sized object will be found in our own solar system beyond the Kuiper Belt.
  4. Due to the cold weather, a species of animal or plant will either be much more abundant or scarce.
  5. A political religious group will hold a government agency hostage and make demands that cannot be met.
  6. China will make great strides in it mission to the Moon by landing vehicles near American lunar sites.
  7. Public opinion will turn against Ashley Simpson as she selects to have an abortion after news of her pregnancy is leaked.
  8. A small band of two to five thieves will roam the southeast United States hitting movie theaters and fast food restaurants.
  9. A prominent Texas lawmaker will be discovered to have a same sex relationship with a evangelical pastor.
  10. Queen Elizabeth will die of natural causes and King Charles will be assassinated which makes King William the head of the monarchy.


And for a bonus one:  A hurricane will hit the Los Angeles area followed by a 5.5 to 6.2 earthquake.
Let's see how well I do next year at this time.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Chapter Six; GEORGE TILLER AND ME part twenty



On May 31, 2009 , George Tiller was assassinated while attending his church in Wichita, Kansas. A man named Scott Roeder has been arrested and charged with his death. I went to the candlelight vigil held in Wichita, in Bricktown the day he was shot. About a thousand people from all walks of life attended, including religious adherents, agnostics and atheists. There was a peaceful feeling among the crowd, and except for the standard appearance of the Westboro Baptist Church's sideshow, it was a nice time to reflect upon the life of a family man, who devoted his life to what he felt was right. Helping women with their reproductive health is a worthy and important aspiration.



Thousands of people gather in a nearly spontaneously manner after the assassination of Dr. George Tiller May 31, 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. The peaceful protest was held in the Wichita Bricktown area and had many people of different faiths and no faiths at all speak of the way Dr. Tiller supported a woman's right to control her own body. There were only minor protests from other points of view and even they were treated peacefully.

At the vigil, even the abortion rights supporters said that abortion is not the best idea for a woman to have to choose , but it is a right to have the choice and therefore, should be safe. That is what Dr. Tiller gave his life for.
At one time , I was far on the other side of this issue. In 1996, I lived in Andover, Kansas which is a suburb of Wichita. On my days off, I would walk around the Center for Woman's Health Clinic, praying for various things, such as Dr. Tiller to change his mind about performing abortions; or to have the clients change their mind about having the procedure. I felt that a human life was being taken in the procedure. A discussion, of this point, could take awhile, so I am going to skip it, for now.
I am glad that , over the past few years, I came to realize that having safe and legal abortions helps women make difficult choices they have to make with their doctor. My feeling now is, a man has the choice to have sex with a woman, safe or not. A woman has the choice to have the baby or not. It was around the legacy of Dr. Tiller that my ideas were formed.
Sadly, my desire to apologize to him will never come to fruition. I thought about how I could meet him , tell him my story and admit how wrong I was, how much I supported his work. The vigil allowed me to release some of the feelings I had been dealing with. The idea that it was organized at the last moment and was well coordinated with the Wichita Police and the local media, indicates the influence Dr. Tiller's life had on the community of Wichita, was a one of peace and harmony.
While I watched the crowd and saw people talking about all sorts of issues, three younger woman approached me and said it was nice to see a man supporting a woman's choice. For some reason, this let my emotions flow forth and I began to cry. I told her it had been a long journey, to get to this point. I also told her that my mother would be upset if I didn't come, as she was such a supporter of a woman's right to choose. When I told my mother that I went, she was touched and said “thank you” for going.
I have no idea what the outcome of his murder will be, how it will effect the movement on either side. But, I do know that I was touched by his life. It seems like a lone religious radical is responsible for taking the law into his own hands. As has been said before, dogma can make otherwise reasonable people do unreasonable things.
It was quickly after the assassination of Dr. Tiller , that the Right to Life group began condemning the killing of Dr. Tiller. It was then they wanted people to know they were not supporting that sort of action. They preferred to have their points of view take place through laws and court actions. Soon after, the talk changed to, How is this going to shape the abortion debate in America?
I really cannot tell at this time how the murder, of Dr. Tiller and the trial of the accused, will affect the abortion debate in The United States. While I was at the candlelight vigil, I felt that many of the religious abortion supporters still couldn't bring themselves to abandon their faith and see that it is not a God that will or won't protect them. It is the people in this world that you must rely upon to take safe actions to protect yourself. Maybe if Dr. Tiller had decided to abandon faith in total he would still be alive Today.
Instead of being at church , he could have been home, playing with his grandchildren and still be providing quality and safe health care to women in need. This didn't happen, though. Now there is one less abortion provider in the Untied States. The idea of going into practice and physician planning to go into woman's health care is a very frightful one.
I cannot tell, but I do know that for late-term, problem pregnancies there are only two doctors that can help those women in need. Plus, the Tiller family announced that the Women's Health Care Services Inc. will close permanently.
Regardless of your point of view , and regardless of how hard lawmakers tried, Dr. Tiller was not guilty of breaking any laws. Even when the Kansas Attorney General made up 19 charges against him, all the charges were ultimately all dropped.
One thing I did find strange was how people that attended the vigil kept saying , “this was not how Jesus would act” or “this was not God's will”. I would have to say this is not how a human being should behave, but whomever did this seems to have been able to hide behind religion to let his radical views grow until he was able to enter the Reformation Lutheran Church and shoot Tiller in the head. Tiller was known to wear a bullet proof vest. The shooter may have known this and aimed for the head to make sure the shot would result in death.
One final note, when I was in college at Wichita State University, in 1985, I dated a girl that was pregnant from a man she met while in Army. She wanted an abortion. I encouraged her to have it done. I went with her to Planned Parenthood, in Wichita, and when she went to have the procedure. According to the attendant, the gestation was at 12 weeks. It was a hard option for her to choose and a painful procedure to endure. She was thankful that she had the choice. She was also grateful that I was there for her, during the difficult time.
While I didn't have the burden of choice she had to make, she did ask my point of view. She also talked to her mother, who gave her the money to pay for the procedure.
What Dr. Tiller's murder tells me about the purpose of religion , is that it allows people of disparate views to be able to associate and talk about their shared points of view. This can let people with radical views slip under the radar, so to speak, until they are ready to strike. It also provides religious radicals a false sense of empowerment and/or justification, when the people they associate and identify with seem to be in agreement.
On this level I agree with Hitchens , that all religion is harmful. Even liberal and moderate adherents are the picket fence that allows radical views, to build and hide behind.

Coming next time: 
DEATH ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH part twenty one

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Chapter Six; RELIGION AND POLITICS IN AMERICA part eighteen






Recently, Nevada United States Senator John Ensign had a 'consensual affair' with a campaign staffer who was “married to an official Senate staffer,” the statement from his office said.i Ensign who, like me, was a member, of the Christian men's movement Promise Keepers, said that, "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions." Somehow when the term consensual affair, I don't really think the woman's husband was consenting to the affair.


Ensign was one of the vocal republican Senators calling for Senator Larry Craig of Idaho to resign after Senator Craig was arrested in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting in 2007, which Craig plead guilty to. Ensign also figured prominently in the book The Family, by Jeff Sharlet. ii


Craig was also a vocal Republican . In 1998, he called for the resignation of President Bill Clinton after news of his liaison with Monica Lewinsky was revealed. Ensign has not resigned his senate seat but resigned his leadership position in the Republican party. Ensign's wife, Darlene, is standing with him and has said, "I love my husband," in statements, “and that the affair has made their relationship 'stronger.'”


While the affair is bad enough, one would conclude that it reflects a serious ethics violation in as much as the woman, he had the affair with, was the wife of one of his campaign staff. Yet even with this the biggest issue is the hypocrisy of this man.


The same scandal with a Democrat would still admit the issue, but the career of a Democrat is much less likely to be destroyed. Bill Clinton survived his scandal and ended his term in office with high approval ratings. Other Democrats have similarly been able to overcome the sex scandals and either keep their office, and at times even been reelected. The point, of this example, is to show the hypocrisy of this party that reflects the values of the American religious right. Time and time again they fall prey to their own natural human desire. These people lead the charge for traditional American values yet time and time again are the worse of violating the values that they say they support. Not to mention that traditional American values doesn't really mean anything to begin with. It is a slogan to help polarize and separate one group of Americans from other Americans. So the honest way to look at traditional American values is that these value followers seek to attack and criticize people they see as different from their key talking point.


Getting back to Sen. John Ensign, I do not fault Ensign for being human. I do fault him for not realizing that humans cannot be held to a unrealistic standard of behavior imposed by religious dogma and promoted by political parties. His calls for the resignation of both Bill Clinton and Larry Craig should serve as his own standard of conduct. Anything less shows the continued double standard that the Republican party and its religious right holds for violation of certain ethics.


Non-believers have an advantage over religious adherents in that they can be trusted. Most non-believers are non-violent. They do not wish to fight or kill others. Non-believers also have a desire or quest for facts, or as I call it, truth. Therefore, their motives are usually clearer.


So, I ask, Why would a non-believer be a candidate for someone to be more trusted? Surely this runs counter intuitive to conventional wisdom. Or does it? As I have mentioned through the earlier definition, non-believers do not have a dogma, in which they subscribe to, so they only have the natural world to base their motives and actions on. You will not see an atheist trying to limit the rights of a group based on two or three lines in an ancient book. To be honest,an atheist my actually disagree with a person’s particular view but still be supportive of their right to have the view.


An atheist cannot justify killing , more than 3,000 people in a single day attack, to follow the belief of a religion. They surely wouldn't dream of a gift of several virgins after the attack. And if they survived the attack, they would expect nothing less than to be put persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


You will not see an atheist sequester scores of followers that feel they are obeying the words of a supernatural being. You will not find an atheist using dogma as an excuse , to have young girls married off to older men just because the men say they have reached “womanhood”. Religion cannot motivate an atheist to blow up trains or buses or strap bombs to their chest, walk into crowed shopping areas and kill innocent people. Any religion that asks its adherents to subject their will to the dogma of religion is not worth following. There is a common good for all people. Society works best when we follow these ideas. These need not be dogma, only rules of social behavior.


That doesn't excuse bad behavior or non-believers from violent acts. People's motives that are not directly dogma-based can cause violence and oppression. Clearly, as I viewed the smoke coming up April 19, 1995, at the Murrah bombing that killed 168 Americans, I could not have believed it was directly, religiously motivated. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were, however, ideologically motivated by a segment of belief, which is dogmatic. Just seven years before that April day, I took my oath of enlistment into the United States Army by a former Air Force officer roommate, after going through the MEPS processing in the Murrah building. I have seen first hand the vile poison that comes from the radicals from the right of political thought. Not to say that left political radicalism is any good either but the idea is that the right seems much more indoctrinated into the idea that violence is a action that is a viable option. Taking up arms against the “enemies” of freedom can even result in patriotic pride and the previously mentioned polarization and separation from mainstream society.


When a group removes oneself away from opinions that can calm, challenge provoke, educate, and moderate their points of view, they will soon find that the path that their thoughts lead them too is one of self destruction and possibly harm to others.


The same can be said about the April 20, 2000 , Columbine School shootings in Lakewood, CO. I was not in Colorado, when that happened. The same deeply held belief and distortion of reality motivated the shooters in that tragedy. The point is that the belief in a supernatural dogma adds to the likelihood that otherwise “good” people will do bad things. If one is not willing to question what they believe, then they can be manipulated into doing things they cannot believe they would otherwise do.


Every atheist I have talked to feels strongly that we, as humans, must do what we can to better ourselves and help our fellow man. If there was anything like dogma for an atheist, this would be the one and only thing I think that would qualify. Oddly enough, most of the religions that support the right to life would be surprised to find that abortion is really a non-issue to most atheists. By that, I mean that it is a split topic among atheists. The main idea is that if abortion is legal, it should be safe and accessible. People, like admitted murderer, Scott Roeder, arrested and convicted for shooting Dr. George Tiller, act as if the law was insufficient to deal with his preferred issues and he took the law into his own hands. This is another example of how removal from socializing and moderation of different points of view can lead to radical and deadly actions.


One point of view on abortion is, is that is that since humans have one time to go around in this life. A woman should not have an abortion since that is a life that can add to the advancement of humanity. Another point of view, is that as humans (women) have the means and the right to decide what happens to their bodies. I find both points valid. The main difference is that as non-adherents, we do not have to satisfy a religious dogma to deal with the situations of issues. We can do what serves the best result in the situation. Of course this can be viewed as self serving. But, it can also let a person act best for the situation, instead of relying on a dogma. If a woman is raped, should she be punished? This is the dogmatic view of some religions and right leaning politicians. Are you “sinning” if you speed? Some think this is a sin against God and that an incentive to not get a speeding ticket is not enough. Is having an intimate relationship with someone of the same opposite sex any persons business, but the two adults involved? Many religions have strong views, although I would contend they are based upon prejudice and false information. There are millions of people having sex everyday all day long and not only do I not know about, other than by understanding about statistics, I really could careless as long as it doesn't endanger my health or safety.


If one can understand this , then you can get insight as to what being a non-believer is all about. Dan Barker, of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,in his biography that near the end of his time as a Christian pastor he was going through the motions. Ostensibly, since announcing he was an atheist would basically end his occupation. After giving even, what he felt, was a half hearted message, people would still come up to him and tell him that the Holy Spirit moved them through his message. When I heard this, I understood what he was talking about. I found the same hypocrisy in religion as well. Barker said that he now could understand how religion worked. It was not only him, as the preacher, that helped set up the false world of religion but also the followers, who were party to supporting the messages they heard. It is a truly self-fulfilling prophecy.iii It was a seed planted many years ago, when my friend Dave, as mentioned earlier, told me that you could use the Bible for any purpose you wished. In our society we certainly do that.


We have a series of marketed religions in the United States, since the state doesn't sponsor, support of endorse a religion. [Or so we try to keep it from doing.] Basically, for any perspective one has, there is a church already in place in America to serve that view. If not, one can easily be made to fit that image. An example of this ranges from churches that allow multiple wives, such as the Yearning for Zion cult in Texas, to Unitarian Universalist congregations found in many cities throughout the county.iv The UUs, as they call themselves, say you can believe any dogma or none at all. It is as close to an atheist church with a remnant of dogma as I have heard of. Of course, a totally non-religious church would be The Ethical Society.v They call their Sunday morning gatherings platforms instead of a service or sermon.


To go on , I have met very liberal, non-believers and very conservative non-believers. One of the more famous atheists is Christopher Hitchens. He has many views that I disagree with. It is interesting to listen to him on a talk show and be in total agreement with what he is saying about how religion ruins everything. Next, he is defending President George W. Bush. But, that is the point I want to make. It isn't a dogma that an atheist has, it is the lack of dogma that makes us the people that we are. I also have the feeling that I could convince Hitchens to the validity of the points we disagree on. While he has reason that can be disputed, he would likewise listen to logical arguments. If he felt I made a valid point he would accept it. Like me, he has no dogma to defend. It doesn't change his strength of character, to admit he is wrong or to adopt another point of view. I do not lose my faith if something I currently believe in is show to be false. I just adapt a more accurate point of view. But faith is so manically that if a tentacles of faith is shown to be wrong that the person can see this is a valid reason to doubt their entire system of viewing the Universe. It can truly be quite disturbing and even dangerous for someone to face the fact that a thing they believe may not be as true as their faith as assigned meaning to it. This all by itself is a strong enough reason to take a stand against religion.


This helps explain the motivation of non-believers. Non-believers do not have to “spread the word” to every human on the planet , for a heavenly fireworks display to take place and we can do the inverse bungee jump to heaven. We do not have to make a long distance journey to walk around a rock in a black box. We do not need to have a messianic cartographer make our map for us. Then kill those that he says are on our “promised land.” We can be happy on any suitable piece of land as long as it provides what we need. It is more likely that a non-believer will act in his or her own self interest or the interest of something tangible, than the delusional dogma of a religious adherent.


The religious adherents often have to remind themselves of what it is they believe and why. It is not at all uncommon to find a Christian bookstore in a small town with many books on a variety of subjects and other items of interest to the believer. They will buy books, t-shirts, music, paintings, stickers, rings, and other items to help them remain blinded as much as possible to the possible “evil” influence of the “world.” But, it is hard for me, or other like minded people, to walk into a store and find books on the subjects of disbelief and fighting the influence of religious dogma. To be quite honest, most major authors on these subjects range from preeminent scientists, to former pastors, to journalists, to doctors and other career fields. Due to the approach of being a secularist, the diversity of topics can range from dealing with medical aspects of homeopathy and psychic surgery, to aspects of the nature of life and The Universe , to political ramifications of a religious groups’ actions. This can cause the books written by such people to be in many different sections of a mainstream bookstore. Quite different from a Christian bookstore indeed.


Walk into a Christian book store , the theological thinking has been done for you. Rarely will you find any book that will challenge the faith that brought you into the business, initially. The thing is a Christian bookstore is very deceptive. They are not really Christian at all but they are actually denominational book stores. This means it is easy to be immersed in the familiar and friendly ideas that do not threaten your way of thinking. But try looking for topics that do not fit their dogmatic point of view and you will be looked at as if you just stepped off the mother-ship. But if you go to a secualr bookstore you will have the ability to find books that might actually challenge your knowledge and help you to become a more intelligent person. I am glad I have to look for books and items that I wish to read. It certainly can be eye-opening. But of course many adherents seeking out a book on a topic are not so much interested in seeking an opposing view as they are to shoring up the view that they think shores up the view they think the Bible hold already. After all there is no reason to challenge a faith that is well grown and well entrenched.
xxivhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html
xxvhttp://jeffsharlet.com/
xxvihttp://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/
xxiixhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html
xxixhttp://theethicalsociety.com/

Coming next time: Chapter Six; 
HERE IS YOUR SIGN part nineteen