Do Unto Others: Why the "abortion debate" should not be a debate at all

The opposite of "allowing abortion" is not—as some seem to think—"banning abortion"; the opposite is, in fact, MANDATING abortion. Let me break the options down:

1. Abortion is banned.
2. Abortion is a legal option.
3. Abortion is mandatory.

Those are the choices. See the difference?

Option #1 infringes upon the rights of women who want to terminate a pregnancy.
Option #3 infringes upon the rights of women who do NOT want to terminate a pregnancy.

Option #2 makes the most sense because it allows EVERY woman to make her own reproductive choices, without government interference. 

Put another way: 

If some idiotic senator decided to introduce legislation that made abortions mandatory—let's say after a family already had one child—to help combat overpopulation, what do you think would happen?

My guess is, all of the currently anti-choice people in this country would be SCREAMING that their right to make their own choices is being taken away from them and put into the hands of the government.

Hypocrisy rears its ugly head. 

Making abortion a legal option allows ALL women to make their own choices, free of government interference. Banning abortion and it's opposite—mandating abortion—do not. If you don't want the government eliminating your freedom to make choices for yourself, don't authorize the government to eliminate mine. The Golden Rule still stands.

Please spare me the "fetuses have rights, too" argument—this is typically a religious justification for denying a living, breathing woman her right to make choices for herself. Not everyone believes that life begins at conception, and it is not the government's job to mandate religious belief.

Let's make sure ALL women, with advice from our medically trained doctors—not from uninformed voters and anti-choice politicians—are free to make our own reproductive choices.

God is Just... right?

To my Christian friends:

Just so we're clear, it doesn't bother me in the least that you believe I'm going to Hell when I die. It really doesn't. You might as well tell me you believe I'm going to turn into a helium balloon and float off into space, for all that it affects me. That it to say: it doesn't. Believe what you want; I choose reality.

What does offend me, however, is this: You believe I deserve it.

You—as my friend, family member, someone who claims to care about me and love me—believe that eternal damnation and torture in a lake of fire is fitting punishment for, let's face it, simply disagreeing with you. I don't believe as you do, so I deserve to burn in Hell for all of eternity. Wow. And people call atheists arrogant? But I digress....

I could murder someone, rape and abuse children, subjugate and enslave millions of people for personal gain, and generally make life miserable for an inordinate number of people on this planet, but as long as I agree with you about God (and ask for his forgiveness, presumably), you believe I deserve to go to Heaven when I die. On the other hand, no matter how much good I do in this life, no matter how many people I help or how much love I foster on this planet, you believe I deserve eternal damnation because I'm an atheist.

You're kidding me, right? Please tell me you're not serious. Or at least tell me you're not planning to run for office any time soon, because I seriously question the judgment of anyone who honestly believes this is "justice". I don't want people who think this way making laws for the society in which I live. Thank you very much.

That said, maybe you're sitting there thinking, "No! I don't believe you deserve that. You're a good person. I care about you and I don't believe you deserve to go to Hell for being an atheist, but I didn't make the rules, that's just how it is."

Congratulations, you just admitted that your God is unjust.

I acknowledge your predicament.  Either your God is irrational and unjust—and, therefore, undeserving of your life's devotion—or he's perfectly just and fair, and you have no choice but to agree that I deserve eternal hellfire and damnation for not agreeing with you about his existence. Tough choice.

I sincerely hope that one day, you come to realize that your God was created in man's image, and that "God's Law" is really just man's law, cloaked in man's prejudice and limited understanding of the world around him. My greatest hope for you is that one day you will embrace reality and devote your life to gaining a better understanding of the universe in which you live, making the world a better place for humanity. I hope that you will, one day, come to understand that we humans can be good without gods.

P.S. I don't believe you deserve to be tortured for all eternity—or punished at all, in fact—if you disagree with me.

You're ALL Doing it Wrong!

I always take a little umbrage with Christians who say other Christians are "taking things out of context" or "not interpreting the Bible" correctly, when confronted with evidence of misdeeds by other Christians or when discussing religious differences. Let's make this clear: ALL Christians take the Bible out of context! ALL Christians "misinterpret" the Bible, often deliberately, by calling certain passages "parable", "allegory", or "metaphor". They MUST do this, in order to call themselves Christians -- and not be thrown in jail for following their religious laws to the letter.

Actually, I take that back... there are Christians who take the Bible literally, and every moderate Christian I know understands that those people are nuts. The fact that "moderate Christians" even exist under such a label is proof of this. Can you BE "sort of" Christian? I would say no. You either are, or you aren't. Can you be a Christian and think the Bible is NOT the word of God? I would argue that you could, but not a single Christian I know has ever come out and just said as much. The Bible has so many contradictions and evil commands from God himself, that any intelligent person can easily see it wasn't meant to be taken literally. But that leaves an interesting conundrum: If we aren't supposed to take it literally, why bother with it at all? You don't need it in order to believe in Jesus, do you? No, not at all.

Take this passage, for example:

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Some might argue that since most Christians today think it improper to stone their rebellious teenagers to death,this  means THEY are taking the Bible out of context. In this example, are they not "misinterpreting" the verse by labeling it "parable" and tossing it onto the "don't do this in real life" pile? Who gets to decide what is or isn't parable? Who gets to decide which parts to take literally, and which parts not? Is Fred Phelps"interpreting" the Bible correctly by taking it literally? Who gets to decide this? That other Christians recognize the insanity and utter cruelty of Mr. Phelps' beliefs should be a pretty clear sign that their holy book is wrong.


I dare say, if most Christians actually read "the good book", they would quickly see that it is most assuredly not the word of God. We can't call it the "Divinely Inspired Word of God" on one hand, and then dismiss the parts we don't like as "metaphor" or "no longer applicable" on the other. It either IS God's word (and all parts of it should be obeyed, including the evil ones, as Jesus himself commands), or it isn't, and it should be cast aside, never again to be used as a weapon against those with whom Christians disagree. I vote for this latter option. You want to believe in Jesus or Allah or Santa or Zues? Be my guest, but please leave the ramblings of centuries-old cavemen behind. Progress requires sacrifice, and I think ancient religious texts, too open for interpretation by radical fundamentalists of any stripe, would be a great starting point.

In summary: ALL Christians "misinterpret" the Bible, "pick and choose" which parts to believe, and "twist it around to suit their purposes"... AND THANK THE UNIVERSE FOR THAT!!! Otherwise, we nonbelievers might all be killed in the name of Christ!

Would You Worship a Tangible God?

===============


What do you think of when you envision God? For most people, God is an abstract concept -- an invisible being who never physically reveals himself, and yet somehow the religious among us "know" he exists. How do they know? (Technically, they don't, though most would argue that point.) They "know" through their faith. They believe God exists, and though it could be argued that perception is the better part of one's reality, faith and knowledge are actually mutually exclusive.

But what if we didn't need faith to know God exists? What if we could see him? What if, when we looked up in the sky, we could actually see God looking down at us, watching us? Well, for one thing, there would be no atheists—it's hard to disbelieve something one can see with his own eyes. 

But let's explore this from a believer's perspective. Assuming God revealed himself and left no doubt that he was God:

Would you worship a tangible God who demanded that you acknowledge his divinity, or else he would damn you to eternal torture and pain? Would you worship a being who just... sat there... while his priests raped and assaulted the children in their care? Would you obey the commandments of such a God, who sat idly by while nations murdered one another in his name? Would you revere a being who simply watched, detached, as your family member or loved one died from cancer or some other disease, despite your fervent prayers?

Would you be a slave to such a God? Or would you hold this Tangible God accountable for his inaction and demand more for a lifetime of worship and devotion?

Why, then, do you not demand more from him now, even though he's intangible? Why does that make it different? Why do we make excuses for an invisible God? Would we make the same excuses for a God we could see? Hear? Touch?

Is it because WE aren't accountable for our actions as long as he refuses to reveal himself? I suspect far fewer crimes would be committed if people truly believed there was a God—tangible or otherwise—watching our every move. Is it possible, then, that in our heart of hearts, even the most pious among us knows that God really doesn't exist? Or if he does, he really doesn't care what we do or what happens to us?

How tragically convenient, then, that he chooses to remain invisible....


EDIT: I've added one of my comments below, since some people couldn't see them:


The reason for pointing out God's "tangibility" was to simply ask if it would make a difference to those who believe, if they could see [God] and he could see them.

For example: 

Let's say there is a $1000 bill lying on a table in an empty hotel lobby. There is absolutely no possibility of getting caught if one were to take it. I'm betting some people—including some who claim to believe in God—would take the money; others would not take it, be they religious or otherwise.

Now assume there is a camera in the room, clearly visible to all who enter, and a sign stating that the room is being monitored. 

Which scenario is more likely to prevent someone from taking the money? The possibility that God is watching his actions? Or the possibility of jail time if he's caught?

That is the point of this post. Belief in God doesn't keep people from doing bad things, but if God actually was tangible and visible and present, I suspect crime rates would plummet dramatically. This leads me to question the faith of people who claim to believe in God, in all honesty, and it should lead them to question it also.


Peace and blessings!


===============

The U.S. is NOT a "Christian Nation"

The United States is not a "Christian Nation", as some would have us believe.  We are a secular nation, founded in part by Christians.  Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some were atheists, some were pantheists, some were probably unsure.  All of them, however, shared a common cause and understanding: the need to keep the government OUT of religious matters.


This is the crux of the problem today.  Certain Christian groups have somehow gotten the idea that because some of the founding fathers were Christians, the U.S. must be a Christian nation.  They couldn't be more wrong.  The idea that because some of the founders were Christians, they must have wanted this country to be a Christian nation is not only untrue, it is dangerous for anyone who isn't a Christian - the exact type of thinking that the founding fathers were trying to avoid!  They explicitly left religious mandates out of the Constitution, and for good reason.  They left England to get away from government-mandated religion; they wanted to live in a country where they could think for themselves and practice their chosen faith - or not believe at all - without fear of government intervention.  America is a secular nation.

Sometimes it feels like I'm beating a dead horse with this issue, but it must not be ignored: If the government can make you pray or observe a certain faith, it can also BAN prayer and religion altogether.  Separation of church and state protects religion FROM the U.S. government just as surely as it protects the rights of citizens. If we allow the government to mandate our religion onto others, we are implicitly consenting to the government's ability to mandate other religions - or no religion - onto us.

Here are a couple of well-written articles/posts (written by Christians, no less!) that explain why we must be ever vigilant against ALL attempts to involve the government into religious affairs:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/apr/22/its-a-clear-cut-issue

What Ms. Kelly doesn't seem to understand is that we 'horrible dirty atheists' support the absolute separation of church and state NO MATTER what side the government takes. I would personally stand up for HER beliefs and rail just as hard for that separation if the government decided to ban religion or Christianity. We don't want the government to BAN religion!!! We simply don't want govt ENDORSING it.  

Take a look at Iran to see what a country with government-mandated religion looks like.  I doubt very much that Christians would want to live under that kind of rule, and yet a lot of them seem to have no problem attempting to cloak the U.S. in Christianity and forcing non-Christians to live by their rules.  If those folks would take a moment to think rationally and try to put themselves in the shoes of someone who doesn't share their beliefs, they might begin to understand why the founding fathers did it the way they did - and got it right.

Another great blog post on the subject:


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/national_day_of_prayer_needs_m.php


This is not a difficult concept to grasp, people just need to think about it rationally. "Do unto others" and all that...