http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/lazareLazare in the Nation wants to know what atheists would replace religion with if we actually succeeded in “relegating religion to the proverbial scrapheap of history”.Gee, and I thought the answer was obvious. Schools would be free to teach science without interference from flat-earthers. Women would be more equal and should be treated a lot less like chattel.You and I could marry anyone we felt like marrying without someone else butting in where they are not wanted. Everyone would finally get up of their knees and go to work. My Virginia personal and real property taxes would drop like a lead balloon once individuals, non-profit organizations, and corporations started taking over all the church property in my state and start paying their share of the taxes. We could start having rational discussions on how to reduce and hopefully eliminate the need for abortions in the world. Suicide bombing would cease. Buddhists would stop pouring gas over themselves and setting themselves on fire. Hindus and Muslims could stop fighting in India and Pakistan. Catholics and Protestants could stop fighting in Ireland. The Turks and Greeks could stop fighting in Cyprus. Hundreds of thousands of women each year would stop dying from lack of medical care during childbirth as a result of the end of the Mexico City Protocols (the Global Gag Rule on childbirth). Children would no longer be sacrificed on the alter of religion once we repealed all the US state laws allowing parents to deny health care to their children on moral grounds. Well, I can keep this up forever. Of course, who am I kidding. We will all just find something else to fight over. Our military preemptive war in Iraq is not about religion — it is about OIL. Anti-abortion is not about religion, it is about male chauvinism and power of one sex to relegate the other to sub-equal status. But I can dream can’t I?What would you replace Religion with? I mean besides rational decisional making?
Peter Nuhn
shit I screwed that quote up it’s
The “What If” Game?….
If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas.
That’s a pleasant fantasy, Peter, but one that would require ENORMOUS amounts of cannabis.
And matches.
This issue is not one of a soul, it?s one of humanness. The problem with dehumanizing any stage of human life is the potential for dehumanizing all stages of human life and the devastating consequences of that have been seen time and again throughout human history.
In terms of evidence of a soul a completely different question, I will have to read up on the matter, it?s not an area I have touched on in my theological reading. If I find something I will get back to you.
Anne:
Well, I say stripping a woman of her choice in the matter is dehumanizing. It’s taking anything resembling choice straight out of her hands, denying her the ability to choose.
Human life is precious. But I will always side w/the life extant as opposed to the life potential.
In the cases of a child born of rape, or a tubular pregnancy, or even in the extreme case, where the child’s potential for being stillborn, or deformed beyond any possibility of a quality-driven life, how say you?
I say, if the quickening occurs, & in absence of the above mentioned issues, & if we’re talking about someone who’s middle-class & above (not poverty-stricken, or encumbered w/too many children), I say it’s too late: you’re stuck w/it.
Fathers it would appear then have a great deal of influence and are extremely important. I suppose it?s all a question of how men choose to demonstrate their concern for women, and what messages they communicate to their children thru their behavior.
Seams a touch odd that they wouldn?t go to the next town over. How secret could it be if they were with a team of people outside the same place weeks earlier? Nevertheless, acquiescence to a behavior having been earlier condemned does not provide proof of it?s beneficial nature.
KA:
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy or any condition that threatens the mothers life, if treatment of her results in the lost of the pregnancy no natural law has been violated.
In all other cases, human life has value simply because it exists, not because of what it does, or accomplishes, or contributes, or any other qualifier. From the smartest to the simplest, the richest to the poorest, the most beautiful to the ugliest, all human life has value. Period. Once we make judgments about value in one circumstance we open the door to judgments along race, gender, intelligence, appearance lines etc., and that is problematic.
AnneMarie
If “human life has value simply because it exists,” how is that value negated if the human life is a threat to the mother’s life?
How do you make the decision as to which is expendible?
And once you make the decision for either, then that can be applied at any point to any stage of human life, as you said.
Seems like you want it both ways.
Anne:
As Karen so aptly points out, there’s a hole in your argument.
This is the ‘slippery slope’ argument – that it’s a step backwards rather than a step forward.
More often than not, it’s not a procedure of convenience.
Again I say, eliminate the root, the tree will fall. Address poverty (& it’s attendant educational void), & much of it will disappear. Not all.
Okay, waitaminnit here.
Natural law would necessarily dictate that the mother die, no?
I notice you evade the rape issue.
In contrast, more women die in giving birth than in getting abortions.
15-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, making your deity the best in the abortion business, I might add.
No, but it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy involved.
Principles easily surrendered upon ‘walking a mile in another’s shoes’, so to speak.
The anti-choice side has several aspects I find suspicious. These are associated with their religious affiliations.
Historically the benefits of high fecundity to a sect and its leaders were obvious. The Abrahamic religions are patriarchal and put great emphasis on keeping wombs occupied with no particular consideration given to the womb support system. Women, ewes and does, it was all more or less the same concept.
Then there is the matter of souls. The more souls available to be captured for christ, the better. The quality of life for the bearers of these souls is irrelevant. In fact the more miserable the life, the better, it seems.
Given that the second coming will destroy the place, there really isn’t much incentive to try to look after it.
If the pope and all the rest really cared about the world and future generations, they would be seeking to lower the birthrate substantially. What was a useful strategy for the success of bronze age tribes is now a threat to every species on the planet.
Without religion we would be in a much better place to propagate contraception reproductive health benefits to all people.
I Belive humens have religion for (A)too explane what they do not understand in the world around them (B)if they had lost a love one in there life and want to think they are in a better place and(C)out of fear of hell or whatever you want to call it.
believe oops
Karen:
This is not a difficult question if each life is of equal value. Decisions are made to protect each life.
KA:
And therein lies the rub.
Happy Mother?s Day to all of you have mothers.
Anne Marie
“This is not a difficult question if each life is of equal value.”
And how do YOU determine the value of each life?
Anne:
Ah, I think you need to re-read the sentence. NOT as a qualifier?
Religions should be replaced by ACUAA: Atheists and Christans United Against Agnostics.
(Thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)
Does anybody else hear the record skipping? The same stuff over and over again. Perhaps Anne Marie should research previous threads. If there’s something that has not been debated (about abortion), bring it on. Other than that, all I can say to her is, “Ho Hum.”
It’s not question of replacing religion…I could care less what my neighbor believes, what the lady down the road believes, or what the family two states over believes. If people find that religion, or philosophies, or atheism helps them live day to day, then let it be.
Just don’t try to base governmental policy in any of them.
Coexist.
Nice anti-religion (anti-war poem)
shows that war comes out of the flags of religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiLO8WVIcgo