Sunday, May 28, 2006

I am unable to deal with the faux religious people in the world!

I wrote this ages ago, but feel it is as appropos today as it was then. --- Lately I have been unable to deal with the shondas of the world. I feel I have to resort to the Yiddish word for "shame" to describe the fuckers who are messing with constitution. The word "shonda" expresses my continued horror at what the hate diapers are doing in Congress and across the world. Sometimes I just wonder if I am the only sane person out there. I just don't know how to articulate my utter disgust with the state of the world right now. I feel physically sick when I think of the continued intolerance all around, and most of it seems to center around religion. You want to know my reasons as to why religion=scary? Well here you have it all. (Just a note to say that I am referring to the so-called "Big Three" of monotheistic religions.) The top ten reasons why religion (of the Big Three monotheistic sort) is utter ridiculousness 1) Why the hell would God care about us? I mean, on a cosmic level, human beings are meaningless. We are animals that, in our modern form, have been around (in our modern form) for possibly 15,000 years or so - not a long time, given time is eternal and the universe is endless in size. Plus, given the vast numbers of planets and solar systems out there - there has to be intelligent life on some other planet. What makes humans so unique? We are barely a cosmic blink in the grand scheme of things. And even assuming that we are a "substantial blink," then if God is truly so almighty, why would God care about the humans? I would imagine that such an almighty being would view us as we view ants. Would you care if ants went to war with each other? I think not. That explains how God could allow things such as the Holocaust to happen - we are meaningless in God's eyes. 2) No one knows what the bible actually says. Sorry, but what with the various translations across so many languages and throughout time, we don't even know what the exact text of the bible even is. Humans are known to be fallible, and it was humans who transcribed the bible. And yet, people live their lives according to the exact text of the bible?? Are they retarded? (well, I think the answer to that one is an obvious YES) 3) The concept of heaven and hell was mostly lifted from Dante's Divine Comedy. The bible is not very specific as to what heaven and hell mean. How is it that religious propogandists have elucidated such a clear vision of the afterlife? Well, it was a writer's vision of the afterlife that spawned the original imagery of what heaven and hell consists of! No one has ever claimed Dante was a prophet or anything of the sort. He wrote a FICTIONAL novel that was admitted to be made up from his own imagination, and not the word of God, that has been taken literally. This goes back to the "people are sheep" problem that I have with religion - they are not told to question, but literally to just accept what people have told them. 4) The literal text of the bible is not followed, anyway! I mean, the United States clearly outlaws polygamy, which is accepted and even encouraged in the bible. It's obviously illegal to sacrifice your first born to God. The bible also seems to be okay with things such as slavery and animal sacrifice - all things we no longer follow. You cannot pick and choose what text you follow. If you claim to view the bible as the be the definitive text which says God's will, and literally follow everything it says, then don't be such a god-damned hypocrite about it! 5) Secular concerns have infected the church for thousands of years. You want to know why priests cannot marry? It's because priests used to be able to marry, and then they would have kids, and the kids would inherit the parrishes. The Catholic Church was losing land, and so they enacted a new edict that priests cannot marry. The edict has nothing to do with religion and all to do with their own selfish concerns to dominate Europe. 6) This new pope claims he is against moral relativism, but he is the foremost guy who is into moral relativism! I mean, war is okay but abortion is horrible? Where does he get these arbitrary precepts? Abortion to him is equivalent to the Holocaust. THAT is moral relativism. He won't allow holy communion for politicians that are pro-choice, but one that advocates the DEATH PENALTY is perfectly fine. This is all arbitrary and Jesus would be horrified that his name is being used in this way. He selectively quotes whatever religious text he wants to justify whatever he wants to justify and claims it's in the name of religion. Um, no. 7) Santa Clause itself is made up from the Coca Cola company. Does that not say it all? I mean, the tie between religion and consumerism seems pretty obvious. 8) Oh, let's not forget that religious intolerance has brought about more devastation to the world than pretty much anything else. And yet...this is the will of god? To subjugate people and bring intolerance? Why does any one person have a lock on god more than I do? What makes them so special? Why are people so willing to let their lives be dictated by the whims of others? And why is it it always seems that men are the ones making the rules? What makes them so great? As a woman, I take great offense. 9) Here's a good one. If human beings are so perfect, and we are in the image of god, then how in the hell is sex so horrible? All it is is fulfilling our godly intentions and biological urges. If we are meant to propogate the earth, shouldn't we be having as much sex as possible? Oh, and if humans are made to be perfect and in god's image, then why has religion been used, particularly lately, to show how evil gays are? I mean, gays are just acting in the way god intended! 10) THE LIES. I would love to have access to the secret Vatican files. Oh, how I would love that! You all have to read Dan Brown's The Davinci Code. In it, it speaks of "the divine feminine," and how Jesus was really married to Mary Magdalene, and lies were spread about her by woman-hating power-hungry people. Sorry, but it makes sense. This was a rabbi at a time when everyone married. If he were not married, then he likely was gay. I find it hardest to believe that he was celibate. I actually am as sure as sure can be that he had sex in his life. AND WHAT IS SO WRONG ABOUT THAT?!?! I mean, it's okay to sodomize little boys (and let's not even get into how THAT'S been covered up through the years) but it's not okay to engage in consensual sexual relations? It all is based on flat out lies about sexuality and the actual story of what went on. We'll probably never know the truth. Anyway, so that's pretty much the condensed version of why I find religion to be frightening, silly, ludicrous, and based on intellectual laziness. People don't know what happens after death, so they enacted this whole sham to kid themselves into believing there is an after-life. They just cannot conceive of their own mortality. There are still people who claim that Galileo was lying. These people are anti-science, and need fairy tales to justify their existence. Um, NO THANK YOU. I prefer science. And I am sick of being told that Democrats are somehow "voting against the will of God." No, God assuming it exists, does not care about whether Democrats or Republicans rule in America. But the Republicans instead are arguing against what I would argue is natural law. They are anti-evolution and anti-education and are pro-stupidity. Just look at this president. He typifies the ideals of these amoral (but pretending to be moral) assholes. I just wish these people, including the new pope, would admit they are basing their politics on power grabbing, and not on religion. The world would be a better place.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

(1) The Bible has stood up pretty well under translation. True, we don't have the `literal word', but we never had it. The men who wrote the various books weren't transcribing anyhow. There are a few exceptions, e.g. I thru X.
(2) The rule in the Catholic church against priests marrying wasn't a selfish rule. Rather the opposite. If priests had families, they'd be torn between their duties to the flock and their duties to the family. Even as it was, nepotism was a grave problem. Rabbis could marry because rabbis, unlike priests, were expected to keep a trade and earn their own living.
(3) The Republicans are not officially against evolution. There are quite a few Republicans, and quite a few conservatives, who accept that Darwin had a point. Pat Robertson is an embarassment to conservatives, not a paragon.

felix said...

Miss R wrote:
"No one knows what the bible actually says." Actually we do know inasmuch as there is only one version of the Old Testament (the five books of Moses) and likewise the other books (psalms, judges, etc.) that follow. In the New Testament their are various books. While the fact that there is only one version of the Old Testament doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, it is innacurate to say that there are different versions.

You seem to devote alot of time and effort to debunking religion and trying to prove that there is no God. Maybe you are right, but it sounds like you have not been exposed to an intelligent presentation of religion and Judaism, (I assume from your posts that you are Jewish). To hear the other side of the religious argument, I would recommend a book by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin called "The 9 Questions People Ask About Judiasm". Corny title, but valuable book.

Red Tulips said...

Felix:

I will look into buying that on Amazon.

Plain Jane said...

Of course you're the only sane person - and everyone else is insane.

There's a clinical name for that complex (meds too).

Crusader said...

Well, a quick review of your rant against religon would go as follows:

1) Your first point is entirely opinion. As such, your claim to truth is no less nor any greater than that which you criticize.

2) Your second point evidences ignorance of history. We're *quite* certain what the Biblical texts say. What the larger "we" can't agree on is whether they are indeed "holy" and what we're required to do in order to truly follow them.

3) Your third point evidences ignorance of history. Dante' was born a couple of thousand years after the earliest portions of the Old Testament were penned and more than a thousand years after all of the New Testament was written.

4) Your fourth point (purposely) blurs the point of the establishment clause.

5) No complaint.

6) Your sixth point evidences only your (convuluted) opinion on the matters addressed, and as such can not be anymore authoritatively "right" or "wrong" than the Pope you are criticizing.

7) Your seventh point evidences an ignorance of history. Santa Claus was around long before the Coca Cola company.

8) Your eighth point is merely an extention of your first one--and is as chock full of mere opinion as the original one as well.

9) Your ninth point is terribly shallow. Societies of both religious and non-religious natures have always had *standards* in regard to what is and what isn't acceptable sexual behavior.

10) Your tenth point evidences ignorance of history (and current events as well). Brown has gone out of his way to acknowledge that his work is one of fiction. To attempt to equate such a work with ancient texts is beyond silly.

Red Tulips said...

Crusader:

I will go through your points one by one.

1) This is opinion based on logic. You can disagree, fine.

2) The fact is that the bible was written hundreds of years after the event occurred. Therefore, there is no way we actually know what really went on, given it is a translation of a translation that was written hundreds of years ago.

3) I am well aware of when Dante was born. However, the modern conceptions of what heaven and hell are simply are not found in the bible, and in fact are heavily influenced by his books.

4) That is your opinion that I blir the establishment clause. Please tell me how I did it.

5) we agree

6) You did not address how my logic is wrong. The pope says that abortion is equivalent to a Holocaust. Those are his words. If you agree, then clearly you need psychiatric help.

7) The modern definition of a fat Santa with a red coat and white beard was indeed Coca Cola created. (even if St. Nick has been around for ages)

8) You did not deny my 8th point, but merely said it was opinion. Excuse me, are you unaware of history?

9) Agreed that religious and nonreligious societies have sexual standards. But then again, religion enshrines the beliefs of society at a particular point in time and makes it difficult to evolve past that, casting sex in all sorts of shadows of shame - when instead it should be celebrated.

10) The fact is that all major religions celebrate men as opposed to women. The divine feminine has been left out of religion. Whether or not Brown is correct in the details of his book is not what I was arguing. I was saying that in fact religious texts have contributed to the subjugation of women in society, and I wonder if that is because certain men at the time had a vested interest in this being so. I stand by this.

Now time for bed.

Crusader said...

1) This is opinion based on logic. You can disagree, fine.

"Logic"? You claimed it as a *fact* that there is intelligent life elsewhere, when in truth we know nothing of the kind. You then theorized about whether or not our time and our existence is "significant" to God. That's find for an opinion piece, but let's not kid ourselves that you settled anything by writing it.

2) The fact is that the bible was written hundreds of years after the event occurred. Therefore, there is no way we actually know what really went on, given it is a translation of a translation that was written hundreds of years ago.

You're "moving the goal posts" here. Your *original* post dealt with the thought that "No one knows what the bible actually says." That is a factually incorrect statement. ALL of the major "translations" are derived from the original ancient texts that have been preserved for centuries. That the translations themselves bicker back and forth in no way negates the truth of that matter--intead the differences between the translations are largely the result of having to occassionally pick between one of two alternatives in regard to *which* version of the Hebrew or Greek word to translate (much like many English words have multiple definitions).

Its fine that you're anti-religion--I'm not here to bash you for that. But when you speak of "The Bible", you can't just make up your facts. Instead, look into the history of the texts themselves and what the process was for developing the many translations that are currently in existance. Once you do so, you may still doubt that the texts themselves are "holy", but you will likely stop asserting that "we don't know what they say".

3) I am well aware of when Dante was born. However, the modern conceptions of what heaven and hell are simply are not found in the bible, and in fact are heavily influenced by his books.

The Bible is replete with references to heaven and hell. If you are asserting that what is commonly thought of as heaven and hell is *CONTRARY* to what is described in the Bible, you would need to cite biblical passages that contradict the modern perception.

4) That is your opinion that I blur the establishment clause. Please tell me how I did it.

Nowhere in the New Testament are biblical believers instructed to make the law of the land match their belief system. Further, Jesus himself is (largely) believed to have endorsed submitting to secular government when he is quoted as instructing us to "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Combining the LACK of any biblical instruction to jury-rig the law with the Establishment Clause's clear prohibition from doing so means that believer's aren't responsible for the legal shortcomings you identify in your original post in regard to polygamy and the other items you mentioned.

By the way, you're not aware of the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, are you? I ask because your original rant addresses "commands" that are no longer considered to be active-tense commands to modern day believers. I assume you wouldn't have blurred those lines intentionally, but rather did so because you're not aware of how they are taught.

5) we agree

6) You did not address how my logic is wrong. The pope says that abortion is equivalent to a Holocaust. Those are his words. If you agree, then clearly you need psychiatric help.

First of all, I haven't read the Pope's words on this topic, but I'll comment upon what you say that he has said. Have you considered the *body count* in regard to abortion? How does that body count compare with the Holocaust? How does the mentality that says we can *kill* what inconveniences us NOT comprise a *moral* Holocaust?

7) The modern definition of a fat Santa with a red coat and white beard was indeed Coca Cola created. (even if St. Nick has been around for ages)

I must have overlooked the biblical texts prophesying the coming of Santa Clause. :)

8) You did not deny my 8th point, but merely said it was opinion. Excuse me, are you unaware of history?

Are you unaware of the *very* secular regimes that unleashed horrific suffering in the 20th century alone? "As a woman", does the suffering and death inflicted by the Soviet Union alone not cause you to "take great offense"?

9) Agreed that religious and nonreligious societies have sexual standards. But then again, religion enshrines the beliefs of society at a particular point in time and makes it difficult to evolve past that, casting sex in all sorts of shadows of shame - when instead it should be celebrated.

Sex cannot be "celebrated" without realizing that there are limitations and standards as to how it is practiced. Adultery is not "celebrated" because society has for thousands of years determined that, as a whole, it weakens the family. Incest is not "celebrated" no matter how one views the (alleged) love between those involved--society has determined for thousands of years that on the whole that the practice is a negative to family and to the culture at large. Homosexuality and other forms of non-traditional sexuality will have to pass the same cultural tests that have been put upon every other form of sexuality before it can be "celebrated". As it stands, the concensus for thousands of years has been that marriage doesn't exist between two folks that practice homosexuality.

10) The fact is that all major religions celebrate men as opposed to women. The divine feminine has been left out of religion. Whether or not Brown is correct in the details of his book is not what I was arguing. I was saying that in fact religious texts have contributed to the subjugation of women in society, and I wonder if that is because certain men at the time had a vested interest in this being so. I stand by this.

If you begin with the premise that "religion is a sham" (which seems to be roughly where you stand), then one doesn't need Dan Brown to explain religion's preference for male leadership. Since physical force is/was the primary means to attain political power, it would only follow that the (what you would label) sham artists would write in terms that promoted men.

But arguing that society must use one mythical construct (the "divine feminine")to counteract a construct that you already believe to be mythical (religion as a whole) seems like a dishonest use of our time to me.

Red Tulips said...

Crusader:

1) I will concede we do not *know* that there is life elsewhere. But I find it mathematically improbable that life does *not* exist elsewhere - given the size of the universe. Furthermore, I fail to see how special humanity is, given the age of earth alone - we are a blip on the scale of things. Religion is based on how special/unique humanity is, and logically, I fail to see how this makes a whit of sense.

2) We do not have the original texts. This is a fact. The earliest texts we have are translations of translations. Hell, we only recently found the new Gospel! So how exactly do we know what anything says?

3) The bible does not give the sort of explicit images of heaven and hell that is popularly assumed today. I am not saying Dante's text in any way contradicts the bible - but I do say that much of what we conceive of (visually, viscerally) of heaven and hell is derived from his text.

4) I will admit to lack of detailed knowledge of the New Testemant. I was bat-mitzvahed, and this was not covered in Hebrew School. Can you elaborate on this point?

I also was not speaking of the Establishment Clause in this point! What I was speaking of is how religious people pick and choose what they believe from the new and old testemants - choosing to say it is wrong to be gay, but not choosing other things. I find this hypocritical to say the least.

6) So you are saying that a fetus is a human being? How do you get such a spurious perspective??? You are saying it is even on the same planet to abort a fetus as it is to torture and kill a human being? Are you crazy???

7) You have to admit that Santa is a huge part of Christmas, even if it is not in the bible.

8) The Soviet Union was firstly not a regime that practiced secular humanism. It practiced forced atheism. Forcing anything upon anyone is a horrible idea. At the same time, encouraging rationality and science is a GOOD idea. Forced atheism is its own form of madness which I do not advocate. But that does not contradict the central point that more people have died from religious wars or religious-based hatred/bias than anything else. This includes the deaths from Stalin - which I do not excuse. And let me repeat, I do not advocate forced atheism.

10) I do not argue that the divine feminine is correct. Iamnot saying women are better than men. But I do say that the patriarchal system of religion is a logical fallacy and against the very nature of our humanity. It is might makes right, written into religious texts. If there is a God, logically, why would God advocate something so illogical?

Finally, in order to even start with the hypothesis that the bible could in any way be correct, you have to believe that humanity is special in any way. Where is there any proof of this? I amnot asking a facetious question here. I honestly am curious - what makes you think that we really are better than apes? We have a consciousness, and yet humanity has chosen to lie, cheat, steal, and kill with said consciousness, as well as rape the environment. The truth is that if all humans were wiped from the earth, then, as seen in Chernobyl, the earth would become a flowering paradise of flora and fauna. In what way do we better the earth? And what greater good has our consciousness served?

Crusader said...

2) We do not have the original texts. This is a fact. The earliest texts we have are translations of translations.
Hell, we only recently found the new Gospel! So how exactly do we know what anything says?


That new "Gospel" isn't part of the discussion since its not accepted as Canonical scripture. We "find" lots of things from Biblical times during archeological digs that aren't accepted as being part of the Bible.

In regard to "translations of translations", you are at least partially correct in regard to the earliest references to Old Testament history that are said to have occurred before the earliest corresponding written account of the event(s).

But we have no such "chain of custody" questions in regard to the New Testament. (More on the Old and New Testament in the next topic below).

4) I will admit to lack of detailed knowledge of the New Testemant. I was bat-mitzvahed, and this was not covered in Hebrew School. Can you elaborate on this point?

There's a couple of key differences between the Old and the New, and I'll try to be brief.

OLD TESTAMENT
In *historical* terms, the Old Testament represents the word of God PRIOR to the coming of the Savior. It contains recounts of (alleged) historical events, the commandments of God (for that time), proverbs, and prophesy of a Messiah that will one day appear to save his people.

In *spiritual* terms, the Old Testament represents "The Law"--a set of commandment-driven principles that one was required to follow to the letter in order to be in God's will.

NEW TESTAMENT:

In *historical* terms, the New Testament represents the word of God after the coming of the Messiah (including 4 accounts known as the Gospels that tell of the events immediately preceding his birth up until his death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven). Besides the Gospels, the New Testament contains an account of the early New Testament church ("Acts") and epistles written by early church leaders in regard to how to live the Christian life.

In *spiritual* terms, the New Testament represents "Grace"--the idea that because Old Testament law was ultimately beyond the grasp of human behavior that a Messiah would come and sacrifice HIMSELF to pay the price of the sin of mankind. Once the sacrifice bill was paid (as prophesied in the Old Testament), men would be in God's plan by merely acknowledging the sacrifice that had been made rather than having to jot every "i" of the Old Testament law.

As it related to our earlier discussion, the key point is that Christians believe that the numerous commands given in the Old Testament are no longer binding in a spiritual sense.

6) So you are saying that a fetus is a human being?

Not only am I saying it, you know it full and well deep down in your being. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you or I couldn't argue the opposite in a *legalistic* manner were either of us inclined to do so.

Instead, I'm pointing out that at the end of the day when its just your quiet thoughts and a glass of wine, we both know that what's growing inside a pregnant woman is, indeed, a baby--a human baby.

You are saying it is even on the same planet to abort a fetus as it is to torture and kill a human being? Are you crazy???

I'm simply honest. Again, somewhere inside you stirs the truth on this matter. The only difference between "abortion" and "torture" is the timing and location of the act.

7) You have to admit that Santa is a huge part of Christmas, even if it is not in the bible.

Very true. But you can't really hang that one on religious folk, can you?

8) The Soviet Union was firstly not a regime that practiced secular humanism. It practiced forced atheism. Forcing anything upon anyone is a horrible idea. At the same time, encouraging rationality and science is a GOOD idea. Forced atheism is its own form of madness which I do not advocate. But that does not contradict the central point that more people have died from religious wars or religious-based hatred/bias than anything else. This includes the deaths from Stalin - which I do not excuse. And let me repeat, I do not advocate forced atheism.

Nevertheless, looking forward from the late 19th century, the body count from Stalin and other secular totalitarians tops anything done in the name of God.

10) I do not argue that the divine feminine is correct. Iamnot saying women are better than men. But I do say that the patriarchal system of religion is a logical fallacy and against the very nature of our humanity. It is might makes right, written into religious texts. If there is a God, logically, why would God advocate something so illogical?

But that's circular reasoning. "If there is a God", then His/Her thinking would correctly be labelled the "logical" thought process--everything else would flow from that starting point. We can't begin with human thought and then work backwards to God (should we agree He/She exists).

I'm also duty-bound to point out that you're on shaky ground with the "very nature of our humanity" comment. The "very nature of our humanity" might be best expressed in terms of how that nature has played out historically. Historically speaking, those with power (primarily physical power at this stage of our history) have used it to direct the events of our times.

Finally, in order to even start with the hypothesis that the bible could in any way be correct, you have to believe that humanity is special in any way. Where is there any proof of this? I amnot asking a facetious question here. I honestly am curious - what makes you think that we really are better than apes? We have a consciousness, and yet humanity has chosen to lie, cheat, steal, and kill with said consciousness, as well as rape the environment. The truth is that if all humans were wiped from the earth, then, as seen in Chernobyl, the earth would become a flowering paradise of flora and fauna. In what way do we better the earth? And what greater good has our consciousness served?

That's a lot of questions wrapped into one. I couldn't do any of them justice at the moment, so I'll have to let that one hang out there for anyone else who may be following the exchange. Readers?

Red Tulips said...

2) The truth is we do not have the original texts of the New or the Old Testemants. So what you said here is simply untrue.

3) You did not comment so I assume you agree.

4) So if this is the case, then why is there so much entrenched bigotry against gay people, and demonization of sexuality by the Christians? If "Christ died for our sins, so we don't have to abide by the previous edicts," then why exactly do religious folks demonize those...who don't abide by edicts?

6) I have never been pregnant, but then again, I believe you to be a male, so you have not, either. Furthermore, you are off the wall. Biologically, a fetus is no different than a frog. It cannot think, it cannot express emotion, and it cannot do anything independently. That doesn't mean that a fetus does not have the POTENTIAL to be more. But to say that a fetus is a human being strains logical thinking beyond any pretense of rationality. A fetus is a hope and a dream - nothing more. When an abortion happens, it is not to be celebrated, but then again, the reasons for the abortion need to be balanced against the hopes and dreams of the pregnant woman, who will be carrying said fetus for nine months. To ignore the plight of pregnant woman is, frankly, baffling. What if the woman was raped? Should she have to endure a lifetime of hell in carrying the unwanted being inside her? Your non-logic and disregard for the life of the pregnant woman is just shocking.

7) Yes, I do hang this on religious folks, who angrily spoke of a "war on Christmas," and want to see Santa plastered on the moon, if possible, over Christmas.

8) The Soviet Union did not embrace secular humanism and your bringing up the Soviet Union is a straw man argument. You also conveniently glossed over events prior to the 19th century. And lest we forget, September 11 was a faith-based initiative.


10) So you are going into the "God works in mysterious ways" familiar refrain, eh? I ask you this bottom line. If God created the universe, who created God?

How does creationism in any way answer any of the questions that the Big Bang theory brought up?

Furthermore, I would agree with you on one thing you said.

We can't begin with human thought and then work backwards to God (should we agree He/She exists).

I will admit that I do not have all the answers, and it is certainly possible that there is a God. But then, according to the logic you and I agree on, we can never understand the nature and spirit of said God, as we are mere mortals. The nature and spirit of God could never be expressed in words, and never be comprehended by human thought. Therefore, all religious texts are mere fantasy and even bothering to wonder about the existence of God is a useless activity - as it is an impossibility to ever know or understand this. (should there be one)

I would like to add that, should there be a God, naturally the God would have no gender, as opposed to the fatherly interpretation seen in religious texts.

Crusader said...

I'm going to let you have the last word in regard to the "religious" portions of our discussion--perhaps somebody somewhere got something out of it.

But I feel compelled to comment again in regard to the topic of abortion. Let's begin:

6) I have never been pregnant, but then again, I believe you to be a male, so you have not, either.

That's not a relevant beginning point for this discussion. Neither you or I have been murdered, but that doesn't disqualify us from discussing its effects upon society at large.

Furthermore, you are off the wall.

You're still at the stage in life where you're comfortable trivializing human life. I grew out of that stage approximately a decade after leaving college.

Biologically, a fetus is no different than a frog.

A frog, given adequate time and nutrition, will not develop into a fully formed human being. A fetus, however, will do just that.

It cannot think, it cannot express emotion, and it cannot do anything independently.

To varying degrees, the same can be said of the handicapped and the newborn. What "right to life" do they have if they cannot "do anything independently"?

But to say that a fetus is a human being strains logical thinking beyond any pretense of rationality.

Hardly. Instead it "strains logical thinking" to pretend that masses that have for thousands of years grown into babies are somehow magically *not* unborn babies.

A fetus is a hope and a dream - nothing more.

You could *not* be more wrong from both a biological and moral standpoint. You've seen an ultrasound haven't you?

When an abortion happens, it is not to be celebrated, but then again, the reasons for the abortion need to be balanced against the hopes and dreams of the pregnant woman, who will be carrying said fetus for nine months. To ignore the plight of pregnant woman is, frankly, baffling.

Why? Pregnancies aren't about the mother--they're about the baby. Surely you've seen pregnant mothers endure every sacrifice under the sun--restructuring every aspect of their life and routine solely for the benefit of the *baby*.

What if the woman was raped?

How would that diminish the inherent value and worth of the baby? The baby committed no crime. The baby, according to statistics, has a 51% chance of being a female. Were you even aware that gender-motivated abortions are climbing? Are you aware that the birthrates of female babies are dropping because some have used the advance knowledge of the gender of the unborn as a reason to abort?

Your non-logic and disregard for the life of the pregnant woman is just shocking.

Your avoidance of your own humanity and that of the unborn is something that you may grow out of over time. Its my sincere hope that you rethink why you place so little value upon the (increasingly female) unborns that will never have the opportunity to experience the world that surrounds you.

Citisucks said...

No, God assuming it exists, does not care about whether Democrats or Republicans rule in America. Makes sense to me as they pretty much stand for the same things. Both don't care it they destroy the earth. See: http://www.therealdifference.org.

Citisucks said...

Myself I get annoyed by the faux freedom of speech people. You know the ones that support sick racist cartoons and then delete comments. Do they annoy you too ???

Red Tulips said...

Engage in rational debate, and you will not have comments deleted.

I cannot be any clearer.

I do not delete comments merely for disagreement. I delete comments for total stupidity.