I am subject to change without notice...

Religion Belief MythCategory Archives

The right to life – I have it.

The Way It Was | Mother Jones.

This article has made me angry. So angry, i am going to open very far too fresh wounds.

I don’t miscarry. Five times, the fetus died. Five times, this longed for child died before twenty weeks. Some early, two, very very late.

Once I gave birth to a little girl I grieved over, too tiny and perfect for life.

The rest of the time, I had a D&C. The fetus, long dead, had to be removed, as my body was not letting go, as my heart was not. It was killing me. I could have died of septicaemia.

With the law changes in the US, I WOULD have died. My subsequent miracles, my youngest children, never born. My equally cherished older children motherless too soon.

The pious arrogance of the anti abortionists. If they are all so pro life, why are they so willing to sacrifice mine? And my youngest two children, who would not have even had a chance to live? 

And all the women who must make the terrible, awful choice, whether the fetus is viable or not, to end a pregnancy. What cruelty is there in choosing for them. Choosing a way of vast expense and pain. Of almost certain death at the hand of backyard butchers. For these desperate women, often trapped in violence and poverty, frequently trying to protect other already born children, unable to access affordable contraception with the obscene lottery of health insurance (unless for the gift of Planned Parenthood, who do far more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to end them), or perhaps young, vulnerable and scared, with parents who would not understand, or who would rage and throw them out, or with the consequence of death and revilement from their community, hard lined with religious intolerance, mocking the very words of their religious ethos – how dare ANYONE condemn women to this? Their children left motherless, often already fatherless, consigned to foster homes that may scar them in too many ways. The women dead or broken, from one awful episode left unable then to ever have that child they may have wished more than anything they could have had, who perhaps died, or meant the death of them? Or that they could have had if older, supported, or not abused?

People like these so called right to lifers make me sick with their sanctimonious hypocrisy. They seek only to preserve the narrow definition of life. All life is not sacred to them. ONly that which gestates. 

Those people have blood of far more on their hands than any abortionist. Those people are murderers far more vile.

Cosmic Pluralism: How Christianity briefly conquered the solar system

By the 1700s, there could no longer be any doubt. Earth was just one of many worlds orbiting the Sun, which forced scientists and theologians alike to ponder a tricky question. Would God really have bothered to create empty worlds?

To many thinkers, the answer was an emphatic “no,” and so cosmic pluralism – the idea that every world is inhabited, often including the Sun – was born. And this was no fringe theory. Many of the preeminent astronomers of the 18th and 19th century, including Uranus discoverer Sir William Herschel, believed in it wholeheartedly, as did other legendary thinkers like John Locke and Benjamin Franklin. How could so many geniuses believe in something so silly?

via Cosmic Pluralism: How Christianity briefly conquered the solar system.

Bones, hairs and blood: relics that stretched pilgrims’ grasp of humanity

The physical remains (reliquiae) of the martyr, whose soul was now with God, were experienced as a direct link with heaven. As “friends of God”, martyrs could intercede with Him on behalf of their devotees, in rather the same way as a patron in late Roman society mediated between the mighty and the powerless; the sick could thus find healing and the destitute comfort. By the sixth century, the landscape of Europe was dotted with countless shrines, each containing a martyr’s body or, more frequently, a bone, hair, drop of blood, or even something that had merely touched one of the martyr’s relics.

This was not simple credulity. Like many art forms, the rituals of the shrine were designed to evoke transcendence. Medieval pilgrims did not question a relic’s authenticity as we would today, because they had actually felt the martyr’s powerful presence for themselves. At the end of an arduous journey – weary, fasting, in a state of heightened anticipation – they were primed for a transformative experience. The shrine itself, with its glimmering mosaics, fragrant incense, and verdant trees, faithfully reproduced the imagery of paradise, but its closed surfaces, half-submerged chambers, gates and grilles hinted that something remained tantalisingly just out of reach.

We do not handle death very well in modern western society: we prefer to speak of somebody “passing away” and push the dying out of sight into hospices and nursing homes. But the relic forced pilgrims to come literally face to face with their mortality. They had to overcome their natural revulsion for a corpse by kissing the relic, pushing themselves into a new realisation: because humanity was divine, even dead flesh, redolent of our ultimate defeat and corruption, could become pregnant with sacred power.

via Bones, hairs and blood: relics that stretched pilgrims’ grasp of humanity | Karen Armstrong | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Göbekli Tepe

The Birth of Religion

We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.

via Göbekli Tepe – Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine.

Phil Zuckerman: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What’s the deal?

via Phil Zuckerman: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.

Free ebook for atheists – and/or knowledge seekers.

Why Can't We All Get Along?

Image by SPazzø via Flickr

We atheists, despite our reputation, are not fire breathing zealots- just like all religious folk are not fundamentalist prigs and jerks and terrorists. So lets agree no one wants to be a party pooper, and instead move towards a world where everyone is a freethinker of sorts, making educated choices If that means your educated choice is religion, fine. Just why should that be my educated choice? I have raised my kids to choose for themselves. I can only hope they choose their beliefs, or lack therein, based on knowledge, not on being given a how to pray card as a child.

Also, theistic, religious types are also atheists. No Christian believes in Allah, or vice versa, (though one could argue, with all the Moses based religions, they are sects of the same faith, but boy, for some reason simply pointing out how the roots of their beliefs, their holy texts, and their inherent similarities work, seems to annoy them), and neither of them believes in Buddha.

Even allowing for your (hopeful) tolerance of another’s beliefs, that lack of belief in the other’s god makes you, well, an atheist. We atheists are the most tolerant of all – we don’t believe equally;).

Anyway, open your mind, start the discussion, debate, agree to disagree, learn, gain understanding. ALL of us, believers of whatever, or nothing believed in the way of deities, could do with that understanding. Defending yourself with knowledge means defending yourself against ignorance and apathy. Good idea, you would think…

Enhanced by Zemanta

“the only moral abortion is my abortion”

This is my 2010th post. It is, i am sure you have noticed, 2010, so a nice symmetry for me to comment on. I like numerical patterns greatly:)

This is particulalry a good post to be notable, as i am a passionadvocate of a woman’s right to aortion. Pro-life, what a stupid phrase, i am pro the life of the woman, i am sarecely pro death:). Pro-choice, again, not as annoying, but not ideal, as some women are in situations where this isn’t so much choice as desperate need.

I would be happier if we had a society where a woman wouldn’t have to make this ‘choice’ – where rape, incest, poverty, did not drive women to face this need, where they had cheap and easy access to contraceptives, where religious intolerance wouldn’t cause fear and shame for unmarried women still.  Where there was adequate sexual education, and access to contraceptives for teenagers – yes, they will have sex, all the pledges and moral lectures on the world are battling against hormones, and a brain that literally has not fully  physically matured in the area that recognises consequence.

I am pro freedom to do what is needed to contuinue your life in quality. Women do not hve abortions for fun, noone gets paid to have one, and it is a terribly painful decision. I am intensely grateful i have never had to make the choice,  but the procedure is formed for difficult miscarriages (that don’t complete), and other gynecologeical complications – i have had both those situations, and despite the best intentions of medical staff, it is moderately revolting to have any sort of invasive procedure. I can only imagine the relief of women who are lucky enough to be able to safely access the non surgical intervention method, the pills that are abotificats when taken early in pregnancy, and can provide an uncomplicated termination.

I have read the article below before, but it NEVER fails to make an impact. I make further comments below.

When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur (copyright © September 2000)

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they’ll never have to think about until they’re suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women — abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers’ own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

“I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers.” (Physician, Australia)

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.” (Physician, Texas)

There are many similar tales, some even more surprising in their blind hypocrisy. Original post had them all due to my lack of editing while using Posterous to post, but i have edited for brevity. Just follow the link to be gobsmacked further. However, let me just say a few things.

Hypocrisy is not unheard of in religion, or any belief system come to that. People are complex, their lives and situations are complex, and the problem with black and white views is that life ISN’T black and white, it is vivid technicolor with shades and spectrums.

However here is a series of stories about women who, facing unplanned pregnancy, decided to have abortions. I have no problem with this. What is astonishing is the woman handing out anti abortion leaflets in the waiting room, the one who snuck in – and went back to picketing outside the following week. The one who insisted it was still murder – and the staff were all murderers. Yet, they all still wanted their abortion.

What sort of mental ability to divide reality like that must these women have? What makes THEIR abortion ok, and not someone else’s? How can they avail themselves of these services, and not be grateful they were their when needed, and support them as the right of all women???

Posted via email from timelady’s posterous

Enhanced by Zemanta

Indoctrination 101. Australian right wing style.

I don’t think so, unless every major (and several minor) religions get equal time, and it is under belief studies, not fact. Atheist ideologies gets equal time too.

BIBLE classes should be compulsory so children have a fundamental understanding of Christianity on leaving school, Tony Abbott says.

“I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisation,” said the Federal Opposition leader.

“That includes, most importantly, the Bible.

“I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.

“That doesn’t mean that people have to be believers.”

But former Howard government Islamic advisor Dr Ameer Ali, said Mr Abbott’s remarks were “over the top”.

“It’s one thing to say every child needs a good knowledge of history and geography or science,” Dr Ali said.

“But it is something else to say all children should have a knowledge of the Bible. That might hurt other people who have their own holy scriptures,” he said.

And the Australian Education Union’s federal president, Angelo Gavrielatos, said that religion was not a priority for schools.

“There is a place for comparative studies of religion in the curriculum, but ultimately we consider it a private matter for parents and their children,” he said.

via adelaidenow.com.au

Another reason to fear this man. Anti abortion, believing virginity is “a woman’s most precious commodity”, he is bringing a taste of the religious right (and we have all seen the damage fundamentalists of any ilk bring) to his job.

Posted via email from timelady’s posterous

Enhanced by Zemanta

So, what do i believe?

Stone dedicated to Carl Sagan at Brooklyn Bota...
Image via Wikipedia

Let me try to background before i define.

I have found many born again Christians have their minds so unfortunately closed, (1), so firmly welded shut, they stand there with their fingers in their ears, eyes tightly held closed, loudly saying “lalala i can’t hear you”.  They assume all atheists just need reeducating. I cannot count how many times i have been informed it is about faith, all i have to do is believe, and accept Jesus into my heart. How? Virally? Some sort of operation? Is that like getting a pacemaker inserted? Or is Jesus a nanobot? Really, it is a very silly phrasing.

One cannot force belief. That is ridiculous. One can force surface conversions, one cannot force anyone to suddenly have faith.  I have attempted, quite seriously, to believe. When i was younger, i envied the apparent comfort of those friends of mine with faith. I attempted to revisit the church of my childhood, the Catholic faith, and found it (even pre scandal) woefully Middle Ages, mired in centuries of suspicion and control, the need to tell people what todo – even what to eat, when to eat it, how to think, feel, be, who to marry, what to do with their fertility. Really?  When did you guys stop time??

Ok, not for me I have looked at the tenets of other branches of Christianity, of Islam, of Buddhism (probably some of the more enlightened teachings I found were in variants of that), Taoism, Hinduism, etc etc. I researched my subject on a personal level. I brand shopped, as a consumer, i did faith comparisons. I applied scholarly principles. I tried common sense. I tried even, with all my might, to believe. Nothing. Nada. Zip. No voice in the darkness, no still inner certainty in my soul that someone was out there.

In the end, even though i could find teachings cherry picked from each flavour and type that held some appeal, made some sense, in the end, the one thing that got in the way was the fact, the utter certainty within me, that they were wrong. It makes no sense. Their teachings, taken as a whole, make no sense. The concept of deities makes no sense.

I regard myself as a spiritual atheist. I can be moved, spiritually, by the large and the small — by the amazing wonder of the Higgs-Boson element, of the pictures from Hubble, of looking at my children’s beloved faces. I can echo the wonder of Carl Sagan in Cosmos, and also the awareness that this Pale Blue Dot is it, our cradle, our one chance. We are blowing it.

To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour.

I have all the comfort i need in the now, in my friends, my family – and in the knowledge i will die. All else is unknown, but i suspect not much will happen when i am dead, as my brain will cease to function. If that energy in my brain moves on to something else, in a way that we have failed to detect as yet, well, i think highly unlikely, but won’t it be a nice surprise. Nor will it be me, as we define our sense of self. Our sense of self is so intrinsically linked to our bodies,we make a fuss about the disposal of our corpses – mummification being an attempt to have your body and take it too, as it were. So much for reincarnation.

Heaven it won’t be. I have long ago realised the Christian or Islamic concepts of the afterlife match my concepts of a hell quite well. Perhaps Jean-Paul Sartre should have not said “hell is other people” – perhaps “Other people’s heavens are other people’s hells”. Not as pithy.

Ok, that is the negatives – what i can’t, don’t, will not ever believe in. There is something in me that cannot possibly take in board a religious belief – to be honest, i respect other people having beliefs, i do NOT respect them forcing it on anyone else, and i do, oh dear, i do tend to find it all a tad – umm, silly, at times?

Some of religion is soaring – architecture, art, music – but those are human things, and can be soaring without religion. Yet Monty Python, and countless other satirists could not have invented religion to poke fun at – they merely pointed out the absurdities for us to see. Like a balloon when pricked, the pompous Wizard of Oz like machinery of religion, has, when the curtain is pulled aside, revealed itself to be merely smoke, mirrors – and a rather pathetic, funny little man, or men, attempting to control the show. Were so many of them not hell bent on forcing their beliefs on us with inquisitions, fatwas, and terrorism (the Crusades counts, Catholic Church, as terrorism), or through politics (the rise of the intolerant religious right), it would be – purely funny. Often, it is tragic, frightening, and terribly wrong. An eye for an eye leads to blindness.

So what do i believe? Will i EVER get to the point?

I do think we should live our lives here as intensely, as fully, as richly as we can. This is it. Other lives, afterlives, doesn’t matter – what we can count on is the here and now. We cannot even count on that, if you want to get into the realms of (brain injury, mental illness, and philosophical debates about individual perceptions of reality).

I think people can believe what they want. Teach their children this is what they believe – but let their children be aware of other beliefs, and be free to make up their own minds, without fear or intolerance. Stop telling me how to love my life, and stop trying to enshrine your desert herding aged historical texts, which are endlessly debated about, into laws and societal demands on my life. Back off.

Welcome to the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. You may call me no 6. (A reference toThe Prisoner tv series may be made here but that is all, pay attention).

Richard Dawkins came up with this way of defining belief in The God Delusion, and it is an attempt to make it simpler for people to understand what belief, non belief, theism and atheism are – should they wish to learn.

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Politics du jour…Freaky Friday, or women and men in politics

We have a woman PM, Julia Gillard.. We have on, not as shiny Caribou Barbie, aka Sarah Palin, (cynically bought in to try to gain the disaffected Hillary Clinton voter base, when Obama won nomination), butwon the role as an outstanding politician (come on, no matter weter you like or dislike her, everyone HAS to concede politics is something she shines at), who happens to be of female gender.

The fact she was sworn in by our first female Governor General, (an appointed role, not an elected one), was spiffy and nice and all, but it will mean something if and when Gillard is elected in her own right. Personally, i’m inclined,  at this stage, towards voting for her (though i tend Greens and independents too).

Not just because i am against Tony Abbott. I could have seen myself voting for Malcolm Turnbull at times. Abbott – worries me. An absolutist in ways of religion and old school attitudes, he is trying to refashion himself as tolerant and more pro equality – but that is stage dressing. He cannot manage the conviction he can evince so well.

Much has been written on this. Here are two articles that I think caught something beyond the breathless media echo chamber.

Rudd’s downfall: he never really got it.

Interesting that Gillard is finally one of my lot, an atheist. Religion kept being snuck into politics here with Rudd, John Howard, and Abbott. Thankfully, not Turnbull. Religion and politics MUST be kept separate. The shaman and the vizier are different roles. Government must strive to serve the majority, in as many ways as it can. Religion serves only and absolutely its believers.

Enhanced by Zemanta