One of the joys of the Internet is that it is easy to pick a subject…in this case, quotes regarding religion by prominent historical figures…and mine a seemingly inexhaustible lode of information. I collected these gems from an ocean of web pages. I quit when I tired of the game, but I had barely scratched the surface of what was available.
Regarding the Patriot Act: (This one is not really about religion, but I included it because it is certainly apropos.)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[Ben Franklin]
Regarding separation of church and state:"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]
On Christian Myths:
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams,Apr. 11, 1823
Regarding the effect of religion on civil society:
"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."
James Madison (1751-1836)
On separation of church and state:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
James Madison (1751-1836)
"I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principal with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done maybe to apply to the constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat."
<span>(I looked this up...it means "the law does not care about inconsequentials.")
James Madison (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm)
On rejection of any attempt to make this a "Christian Nation"…as some current Bible Thumpers would like to do…
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"[T]he successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalian & Congregationalist. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me;"
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
A Pull-No-Punches diatribe against intermingling church and state (I really like this one!)
"How then is it that they [the Church] lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant? It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called The Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys. The inquisition in does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from this mule-animal, engendered between the church and the state. The burnings in Smithfield proceeded from the same heterogeneous production; and it was the regeneration of this strange animal in England afterwards, that renewed rancour and irreligion among the inhabitants, and that drove the people called Quakers and Dissenters to America. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
John Adams (1735-1826)
John Adams, like me, had no use for Christianity.
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
John Adams (1735-1826)
Oh yes, add Franklin to the nonbelievers in the goodness of Christianity:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Well, maybe not just Christianity…he shares my aversion to all religions
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
A snide little comment by Madison that I like:
"Serving God is doing good to Man, but praying is thought an easier service, and therefore more generally chosen."
James Madison (1751-1836)
Paine didn't have much use for it either:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. what have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
…and he didn't limit it to Christianity…
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
I believe that Jefferson and Paine were Deists…and maybe Washington who was really cagey about his religion.
People were always after him to say whether or not he was a Christian, but he evaded the questions all his life.
Here is a very succinct summary by Thomas Paine. I particularly like the last sentence…I added the emphasis.
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. … I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
This one says it all!. I can't understand why Jefferson would beat around the bush like this. Why didn't he just come out and say what he believes?
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Here's another Jefferson quote on freedom of and FROM religion::
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Here's a couple of more recent ones:
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox hristian."
Ian Robertson
I can't remember where I got this, but I believe it is true. It certainly lays to rest the assertions by the Christian Coalition and their ilk that our nation was founded by a populace of devout Christians and that we are straying from their path.
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders—including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin—were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 100
One has to remember that many of those who left England for America did so to escape Britain's state-sponsored religion and its associated exclusionary policies.
For most of the states, freedom to practice religion meant freedom to practice the official sectarian religion of the colony, not any religion a citizen might chose (good old state's rights!). Pennsylvania with William Penn was the most notable exception to this.
I suppose part of the support for the separation of church and state in the early US was to help gain the participation of all the states and eliminate one source of friction (after all, a Catholic state like Maryland may have had serious issues wtih an explicitly Puritian federal government). It may seem quaint to us now, but back then the differences between christian denominations was taken as seriously as the differences between relgions today.
The new Pope, nee Ratsinger, described other Christian denominations as "deficient."
His predecessor was more tolerant.
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
modern day:
"The lesson is: Our God is vengeful! O spiteful one, show me who to smite and they shall be smoten!"
homer simpson
Never heard that one, Martin. Good one!
But over the centuries, religions have generally not been any worse than governments and at their best have nurtured reflection (prayer), spirituality, compassion, and social justice. It's the rabid fundamentalism, the sense of rightness, the exclusivity, and the fear-mongering of religions or governments, for that matter, that has been so destructive.
Thomas Paine said:
Substitute government in the above and it's still true.
They are both organized instruments to concentrate power and control people. They are both inventions of man, so they are subject to the same failings.
by Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
I do consider myself a Peace and Justice Christian of the Lutheran tradition. The only creed that I adhere to is to be kind and seek justice for all, which is from Isaiah (and several of the other prophets). As far as an after life is concerned, let me be surprised. I have a friend who grew up in Nazi and then Communist Germany. She escaped from East Germany as a teenager, married an American Lutheran pastor and immigrated to the US. She refuses to recite the creed during worship services (as I do), because of her experience of seeing entire populations reciting the Nazi and then Communist creeds. Her position is that each of us should recite our own creed during that portion of the worship service.
> (as I do), because of her experience of seeing entire
> populations reciting the Nazi and then Communist
> creeds.
"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin
Or should it be the thrill of the gaming table, the horses, or fast race cars? Maybe NFL football, pro tennis, or world class chess matches? How about kayaking or a long trek into a wilderness area?
My suggestion: If it satisfies, do it. If it results in mental indigestion, avoid it.
My writing is strictly not-for-prophet, Richard. [groan]
> indigestion, avoid it.
i fear there is folly in that statement.
what to do if the things that satisfy also create mental indigestion?
:p
I knew that you would like that Thomas Paine quote. I thought of you when I included it.
> My suggestion: If it satisfies, do it. If it results in mental
> indigestion, avoid it.
i fear there is folly in that statement.
what to do if the things that satisfy also create mental indigestion?
Martin, are you alluding to the Iraq War perchance?
a robot becomes conflicted while trying to adhere to its three laws of never harming humans, always obeying humans without harming them, and always protecting itself without breaking the first two laws.
it got drunk with confusion.
:p
i see where you're going with this, tho. actually iraq reminds me of the folly of lying. before long, you have to lie to maintain a lie, and it only gets worse from there.
One day, a mariner learned to tack against the wind; thus continuing to make progress toward his destination. The entire religion (Priests, altars, sacrifices, incantations, etc) abruptly went kaput!
Why, I wonder, doesn't religion experience the same demise today? Can we not proceed on our way thru life without the need for hireling clergy, vestments, rituals, creeds, sacraments, etc.? As a Quaker enthusiast (no longer a member) you can see where I'm going with this disparagement of religion and hope for a revival of genuine spirituality; i.e. no more gap between faith and practice.
It's a good question. I think it is because they have a LOT of money, and a lot of power (they go together). And, as I said in one of my articles (Post-Holiday Mental Meanderings") People are afraid. This cosmos is a mysterious and scary place, and they want some assurance that they are not as insignificant and vulnerable as they seem to be. Religion fills that need. Or seems to.
Bert, re Jefferson, about 15 years ago I had a book about Jefferson, with something in the title about Frogs. It was a study by an author named Jean ???something. Do you know what I'm referring to at all. I've lost track of that book but it looked at impact of Jefferson on our democracy.
Anyway, very thought provoking, and like Verie, I wish I had had the facts and quotes you presented on hand when I got one of the ridiculous emails about our Christian founders.
No, I don't know that book...but I'll see what I can find. You have provoked my curiosity. Thanks.
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
Whoops! Never mind, that was the founding father of the 3rd Reich, Adolph Hitler (My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933)
It's a pet peeve of mine when the fundies blame secularism / darwinism / etc for all of the problems of the world, then proceed to list things like communism, Nazism, militant Islam, etc. Hitler would never have come to power if he had not appealed to christian values.
(I put this quote in my email signatures so it is on hand to respond to the kind of emails that Carol mentioned. It is striking how short the quotes are in those emails & how many ellipses they insert: if they inserted complete quotes--as Bert did--it would no longer server their purpose.
Perhaps all of us should copy Berts article into emails & start a chain email....
Thanks for that quote. I have read that one of the characteristics of fascist governments is that they try to use religion as a tool of oppression, but I had never seen such direct evidence of it.
Re the chain mail idea...I am usually against Email chain letters, but in this case...
I am having a difficult time tracking down where these quote came from. If you quote someone like Madison, you should attempt to provide a link to the precise text from which the quote was taken.
For instance, when I enter "Those who argue for the Ten Commandments display say that they have a right to express their faith publicly" into Google, I only get three links, two of which are to an atheist website that do not provide a link, and the other is to this article on Gather.
As I said earlier, I wrote this article a year ago. I do not remember exactly where I got all of these, but I do remember that I Googled on "separation of church and state" for some of them. I am a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that often teams with the ACLU in legal challenges like the recent one in Dover, PA. Their web site, www.au.org has a lot of information, and I may have found some of the quotes there. I know that I spent a few days collecting them from vaious sites.
I guess I didn't consider what I was posting here a research paper that required citations. I believe the quotes I provided are authentic, but I suppose I can't prove that without going back and re-researching them all.
I'll take a look and try to find sources for some of them.
Be mindful of the fact that the founding fathers differed on all matters, including church and state,
At least IMHO, the challenge of our time is controlling the secularist who are using the power of government to impose their religion on everyone else. This is precisely what the first amendment was written to address.
Freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from religion.
I don't understand that. How is it different?
Certainly, Jefferson thought it was not...see his quote about the "Hindoo..." above. I think he thought citizens should be free to practice NO religion. Are you suggesting otherwise
And yet, the authors of the Constitution, who chose their words with utmost care, deliberately omitted any mention of god. Freedom of religion, then, implies freedom from religion.
The fear of the framers was of a national religion. They said nothing even of "state" religions. In Jefferson's Virginia, for quite some time after the constitution went into force, landowners paid a mandatory "clergy-tax" to support their local churches like is the practice in Europe.
Our current interpretation of the constitution came to fruition in the 1950's and is a product of a growing secular fundamentalist hostility to religion.
What I oppose is fundamentalism and the tendency of cultural groups to dominate the media and government to perpetuate their cultural DNA over that of others.
The current danger is not Christian Fundamentalists, they are but the reactive force of a dying culture under siege. That sleeping dog should have been left to doze into eternity. The current danger is from those who wish to extinguish all other views but their own.
I feel threatened by the Religious Right, particularly the Fundamentalists/Dominionists, who would like to impose Biblical law, and who even encourage conflict in the Middle East as a way of bringing on Armageddon. Like God needs help?
I do not share your lack of concern for them. I think that, far from a dying last gasp, they are gaining strength and exerting political power. I think they are very dangerous, threatening my rights as a citizen, indeed threatening the future of mankind with their promotion of conflict, particularly with Islam.
The Fundamentalists/Dominionists were quite happy and quietly diminshing in power and cultural stature until the secularists reinterpreted the constitution to enforce a view that was unprecedented in 175 years of our history.
Once that interpretation was made, the force of law and federalism reached from Washington DC into every hoot and holler in every little town in America.
That woke up a sleeping dog, and by god, that dog began biting the leg that stepped on it.
I learned that when I was a kid, you kick a dog and it bites, you kick it enough and it turns aggressive and mean.
Thanks a lot. :)
I started trying to add some citations to some of the quotes...it's a long tedious job to re-find them all. Somehow in doing this, the entire article became corrputed with <span>. Take a look. I don't know what the H**L happened, but I think I am going to have to delete the text completely and re-paste it from my Word document. I was tempted to just delete it, but I was afraid that you would view that as cutting and running...</span>
Now that they are done inventing new constitutional concepts they want to prevent any further "activism". In other words.....once we get it to our liking....it has to stay that way.
That would be a terrible thing..., almost as bad as the situation is now with Family Law where grandparents receive custody of children more often than fathers.
I see few feminists, or those who claim to stand for gender equality getting upset about that.
Now, why would that be?
What I do is this....
1) Copy the url into the clipboard
2) Hightlight the text I want the reader to see
3) Click on the (eternity) link symbol
4) Copy the url into the window that opens up, and click "okay"
That seems to work.
Good Luck.
Not at all, Bert.
We can disagree but still like and respect each other.
I read the quote from Madison and it rang hollow so I tried to find it. I do think it is important to be able to trace these things back to the original text.
I do that all the time. I prefer to read things in the original context.
A fundamentalist, by definition, believes in the literal truth of the bible. There are Jewish fundamentalists as well, but, for now, they have little or no political clout here in the US, though they have some power in Israel, so, it is primarily the Christian fundamentalists who concern me. They have recently moved more aggressively into the public sphere, trying to reinterpret the Constitution as a Christian document, and are trying to impose their religious views on the rest of this country. I have no problem with Christianity, but I do not want the government telling me how to worship, or even telling me to worship.
Me either. And that I believe is the definition of Freedom of Religion. Whether I choose to worship at home, at a church, or not at all and whether I practice Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, etc. or nothing at all, it is a personal choice.
You are focusing on definition 1) but I ask you to consider definition 2).
For instance, after 175 years of prayer in the classroom and The Ten Commandments above the courthouse door, suddenly the courts is ask to be "literal" on its interpretation of the constitution.
Oddly, by many of the same folks, the court was asked to be "liberal" while interpreting Griswald v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
If I were a social conservative, quite a different thing than a Christian Fundamentalist, do you not think that I would be upset with the "do it this way when it suits me" and "do it that way when it suits me" attitude of the socially liberal and courts.
I might even find common cause with the Christians whose lives and culture is being attacked.
If it's wrong, then we should stop doing it...just as we stopped doing slavery. There was a long tradition for THAT practice too.
You said earlier, Greg, that liberals want to use precedent to support their views, after overthrowing precedent to get Roe v. Wade, etc. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's what you were saying.)
I agree with you in this: If the principle of separation of church and state and the prohibition of laws "respecting the establishment of religion" cannot stand the constitutional test, then they should be overturned. My view is that the new power of the Religious Right has no real respect for the Constitution. They just want their religion favored...because Christians are in the majority in this country. And I believe that is exactly what the Founders of the nation were trying to prevent.
I removed the Madison quote that you were questioning. I cannot find a credible source for it. I apologize...and I will be more careful about this in the future.
Thanks...I'll check it out.
I don't remember the incident with Hillary, but the Religious Right has been assassinating her ever since..no, BEFORE Bill left office. I think they are terrified that she might run for president...and win!
The first said that an elephant was like a tree trunk. The second likened an elephant to a rope. The third said that an elephant was like a huge banana leaf.
Obviously, none of them got the whole picture. I suspect the same is true when we each try to describe religious fundamentalism. For example, I might say it means that God expects people to keep the sabbath holy .. no throwing the football around, or even watching football .. since keeping the sabbath holy means dedicating it to worshipping God.
Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews may all agree with that definition of "fundamentalism", since they all revere the books of Moses. But it would only be a partial definition of fundamentalism. Sooner or later semantics and "traditions" enter into the equation, and a common definition would be an almost impossible achievement.
Let's face it. Some people prefer to be safely anchored in a secure harbor; rather than be tossed around on the open seas. Their temperament is going to opt for the security that fundamentalism provides its believers. Now it may be manifested in a preference for the charasmatic form of worship or the high-order ritualistic form of worship, or somewhere in between.
We can't discard or fetter those who crave security. Nor can we discard or fetter those who crave, like Abraham and the prohets, an individual solitary relationship with God. Nor can worshippers of either prefered mode of worship discard or fetter atheists and agnostics. Our Constitution, as I understand it, wouldn't allow it,
We all need to tolerate, and if possible come to appreciate the respective virtues that fundamentalists, mystics, atheists and agnostics each contribute to our society. I know, I get mighty tired of each trying to impose their perspective on the rest.
Perhaps we should let our light shine so that others may see our good works and respect us more. Perhaps we should learn to daily practice justice and temper it with mercy ... and walk more humbly. Dare I suggest that we should be more "spiritual"; whether we be atheist, agnostic, mystic or fundamentalist.
Ah, but you say, "spiritual" connotates God. Does it really? I certainly don't equate spirituality with the practice of religion. But I do equate religion with God. With religion, there is inevitably a gap between faith and practice. With spirituality there is none.
You are certainly right that we could all do with a large dash of tolerance in our political/spiritual soup.
But the problem comes with issues like abortion. There is no right or wrong answer to this issue in my opinion. It's a matter of personal belief. It should not even be a political issue! It's a question of the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, and the problem is, when is the fetus a "person" with rights like the mother? Opinions vary from the instant of fertilization to somewhere in the third trimester. Some extremists would even say that using contraception is murder! The only way to solve the problem is to draw some arbitrary line, I suppose. But nobody seems willing to do that, and the opposing factions end up demonizing each other, both trying to impose their views on everyone. Tolerance doesn't work in this case because it's a "zero xum" game. If somebody wins, somebody else loses.
On the other hand, if expectant parents decided that an unwanted and unplanned child would inconvenience them, or burden them financially, I would regard their decision to abort the unborn fetus as indefensible. If they committed infanticide AFTER the child was born, I would regard it as murder.
Tolerance of others attitudes and actions can be stretched only so far. When abortion is a matter of conscience, I find that I can tolerate and even empathize. When abortion is a solely a matter of convenience, I have great difficulty in tolerating it. Indeed such a cavalier attitude toward life makes me hold such people in contempt.
I don't see any inconsistency or immorality in my attitude toward aborting life. Why don't courts judge the motive for abortion and render decisions accordingly? We would soon build a court history of cases that set the parameters of abortion that is accepted as a matter of conscience and case history of abortions deemed unacceptable. If nothing else, case history and stigma may suffice to make abortion an uncommon, if not rare, event.
Can it be possible that humans writ large are devolving to the status of animals ... after first having evolved to the status of human beings? Some claim that humans descended from the status of "sons of God". If so, it seems to me that the devolution process is in full throttle!
Thanks for a very thoughtful post.
I agree with most of your points, but I would question whether all decisions on abortion come down to a binary...conscience or convenience. Many cases fall in between those two...A couple of examples, but this is just a sample of the complexity of the problem...Doctor examines the child in utero and announces that the probability of Down's Syndrome or other birth defects is high. Another...very early in an unintended pregnancy, a poor couple decides they simply cannot afford to raise a child. In both cases, the probability of a healthy, happy child are very low. Should they be allowed to abort?
These are abortions of conscience AND convenience. I'm sure there are many other scensrios that are even more tragic.
Just how, exactly, would you do that?
Abortion is a very complex issue because pregnancy and labor subject the woman to some very major, and very real risks to her health, her future fertility, and even to her life, regardless of the condition of the fetus. Can the state require a woman to assume those risks? An individual needs to be able to decide for herself, with the advice from her physician and/or nurse, just how much she can risk.
Pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion; advocates for choice disagree with so-called pro-lifers on how to reduce the abortion rate. Prolifers would prohibit abortion, a tactic that has never worked. When abortions were illegal, they were obtained illegally, in back alleys (or, if a woman happened to be wealthy, safely overseas). Pro-choicers, on the other hand, advocate for methods that have been proven to reduce the abortion rates, namely, honest sex education and readily available birth control. Of course, if you believe that sex is a sin, and that pregnancy should be the punishment for wantonness....
Joyce,
Despite their claims of reverence for the human fetus, I believe that many pro-lifers are really trying to impose their moral beliefs on everyone by criminalizing all abortion.
As you say, I also think that the far-right fundamentalists view sex as a means to have children only. Pleasure in the act is a of little, if any, importance.
I think the fundamental difference between liberal & conservative boils down to the metaphors of "nuturing mother" vs "strict father" (this is from George Lakoff, "Moral Politics: How Liberals & Conservative Think", "Don't think of an Elephant: Know your values & Frame the Debate". Except Lakoff states the first as "nuturing parent", which grates my sense of symmetry. And he uses the term 'meta-metaphor', which is too technical).
Under a 'strict father' mentality (i.e., conservative), it is right and proper for a unwed mother to live with the consequences of her actions. (And if she was raped? Either make an exception, or find a way to blame the victim). (Generally, sex is not regarded as a sin, but rather sex outside of marriage--or in the extreme, non-procreative sex)
Under a 'nuturing mother' mentality (i.e., liberal), the focus on what is good for the mother--and undo the mistake.
An alternative of the strict father mentality is that the fetus has the absolute right to life as any baby (period. end of discussion. etc). Perhaps it could be argued that this is a nuturing mother perspective as well, but with the focus on the fetus rather than the mother.
Your use of the word fetus touches on another proint: inevitably, pro-life/anti-abortionist focus focus extensively on the fetus (because it looks like a baby), and never on the preceding stages (zygote-blastula-gastula). So their whole argument is based on late term fetuses, while there whole application starts at fertilization--as if a zygote has equal status with a 8 month old fetus.
I read a quote by Dobson regarding their political priorities. Basically, how can they worry about child nutrition programs, when a baby can be killed in the 3rd trimester? Well, duh. Late term abortions are very rare, and Roe vs Wade clearly established protections for the fetuses they talk about. It's a classic bait & switch argument: instead of the political aim of protecting late term fetus (as stated) they are attempting to expand the protection to earlier stages of human life.
Which is entirely logical, if one thinks in terms of 100% human vs 0% human, and thinks that development from fertilization to birth is gradual. (In such case, the safest position is as early as posible, name fertilization).
The problem is that apparently God himself doesn't take such a position. If God valued fertilized eggs so highly, one would think that more than 1 in 5 would make it to birth. Defining a human individual as a unique genetic could has the same problem, plus the fact that identical twins start from the same zygote (fertilized egg), and some individuals have 2 genetic codes--because 2 fertilized eggs stuck together & formed one individual.
And then there's the whole issue of being pro-zygote (i.e, defending human life from fertilization), while doing nothing to protect babies after birth.
Anyway, I must go....
What you point out so convincingly is that the anti-abortion proponents will use any ploy to advance their cause, just as they will use any ploy to advance their religious views.
Consistency and logical thinking are irrelevant. These are faith-based issues to them.
At a high school level of biology, one basically learns that humans develop from fertilized egg to embryo to fetus to baby. With this understanding, the only clear beginning to a human individual is the fertilized egg. Therefore, to protect human individuals, one must protect fertilized eggs.
But, God is in the details: At a college level of biology, one learns it is not so simple. In a nutshell, a fertilized egg is a zygote, which multiplies and separates into a hollow mass of cells called a blastula. The outer shell develops into the placenta & such support tissues, the inner shell into the fetus (eventually, if it is lucky). At this stage it implants. The most important thing in the life of the embryo occurs next: gastulation. Before this, there's only a 1 in 5 chance of the zygote surviving to birth, afterwards, most survive. Gastulation consists of the hollow shell folding in on itself, and where the folds meet becomes the neural crest--which becomes the nervous system.
Early blastulas can split into twins, or merge into a mosaic individual. So, they really cannot be considered human individuals. Few survive (apparetnly because of defects).
So, I'd say at a college level understanding of biology, the earliest one can claim that it is a human individual worthy of some kind of protection is after gastrulation--it's the last discrete step between the zygote & the baby. Consequently, birth control pills, morning after pills, etc are permissible.
Further on down the development, one must consider the human nervous system, which is what makes us truly human. But that is very fuzzy, as there is not a point in time where it is 'switched on'.
Traditionally, the beginning of human life began at 'quickening', when the mother can feel the baby move. It's still that way in much of Judaism & Islam (I think it is considered 40 days in Islam, but I forget the details) & in earlier Christian times (probably in a number of denominations).
At any rate, the word pro-life should be replaced with more detailed terms. Many are 'Pro-ova', in that they feel that the ova (eggs) & sperm should be given every chance to develop into a human. Many are pro-blastula (the pill is ok, morning after pill is not), or pro-gastula, or pro-fetus. Generally, pro-life does not include pro-baby, since pro-lifers do blessed little (under the guise of promoting a culture of life) to ensure that babys are given a decent start in life. If one were truly pro-life, one would also be pro-baby, and be strongly pro-environmental, since so much human potential is lost to pollution.
For instance, lead pollution has been linked to violent crime. Children with high lead levels cannot control their impulses as well, and have lower IQs (at the action level of 10 mcg/dL, it's about a 10 point loss--if I remember right). As lead levels rose early in this century, violence levels rose 20 years later as the affected children reached adult hood. As lead levels fell with the removal of lead from gasoline & paint, violence levels fell 20 years later (approximately).
But you're certainly right about the "pro-life" leadership: they take their conclusion & pick supporting arguments as it suits.
But I'm preaching to the choir (and a small one at that, eh!)
I'm afraid so, Dennis, but thanks for your informative post. I learned a lot from it. Mercury pollution is also a big problem, especially in fish. Japan has had some horrible events, where whole towns have been affected by mercury.
But the effects of air pollution on the incidence of lung cancer, ozone depletion on skin cancer...the list goes on and on. It could be argued...but not proved...that the 200K+ people who died in Indonesia from the tsunami are victims of global warming. Not to mention the hurrican victims in oru country in recent years
All of this could be reduced or eliminated by an informed, concerned goveornment taking appropriate actions. This is not a partisan issue, although I would claim that the current administration is especially virulent in ther anti-environmental stance.
I'm afraid so, Dennis, but thanks for your informative post. I learned a lot from it. Mercury pollution is also a big problem, especially in fish. Japan has had some horrible events, where whole towns have been affected by mercury.
But the effects of air pollution on the incidence of lung cancer, ozone depletion on skin cancer...the list goes on and on. It could be argued...but not proved...that the 200K+ people who died in Indonesia from the tsunami are victims of global warming. Not to mention the hurricane victims in our country in recent years
All of this could be reduced or eliminated by an informed, concerned goveornment taking appropriate actions. This is not a partisan issue, although I would claim that the current administration is especially virulent in ther anti-environmental stance.
For instance, the former plans to cut mercury pollution by 90% within just a couple of years was off track & could not be met on time. A five year delay would have been more than enough to bring the technology on line. Instead, they triple the allowable amount & push the timelines back 10-15 years. Conveniently, they exclude a recent study which found more health problems in the areas closest to mercury sources.
If they have too, they will regulate. Case in point is diesel emssion standards. The cost-benefit analysis of the proposal was so strong that there was no way they could change it. But that was largely developed under Cllinton, before they could water it down behind the scenes.
Over all, they make superficial improvements in pollution control standards, just enough to say "we're cleaning up".
The Japanese examples of mercury pollution (the city of Minimata was one) were spectacular examples of old fashion, large scale dumping, but not good examples for today in the West (it still happens in developing countries). Now it is more insidious, and the effects are more subtle. Most global mercury emissions are now natural (volcanic & such), but it still makes no sense not to reduce the 1/3 that is from human activities--especially since they are concentrated in population areas.
I don't know how one can argue the tsunami was caused by global warming. BUT, stripping the coastline of mangrove forests & careless development of beaches sure made it worse. (Areas with intact mangrove wetlands had much less damage & loss of life).
Much of the economic gains of the last 20 years have been due to pollution controls (the clean air act is estimated to save some $100billion alone), fuel efficiency standards, and improvements in medical care. (The irony is that right wingers give the credit to Reagan, instead of the policies that he oppossed!) Given that the improvements in the first 2 have been largely stalled (not only by Bush, but also by the congress under Cllinton), I expect that the next 20 years of US economic growth will be nowhere near that of the last 20 (even if the next administration gets it's act together)
There I go again, ranting to the choir.....
I think its pretty clear there was a consensus among the delegates that they didn't want to be held to any of the others' religious docterines. If that's accepted, I think that desire for religious freedom is rooted in a need to have freedom from religion.
Ron,
Yes, the key word is 'from.' Many fundamentalists do not understand the difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I believe our founders wanted both and tried to write the constitution and bill of rights to insure that.
I agree...they scare me too. I have even given some thought to where I will move if this country becomes a theocracy, and I decide to renounce my citizenship.
I still think (hope) it is unlikely, but...
I know about Carter's essay on the subject which was excellent. Coming from him, a deeply religious person, I think it carries a lot or weight. It also gives me hope that there are more like him who see through the neocon pandering to the Religious Right.
Those in government, religion and the media all have something to gain by purveying fear.
My compliments to all who refrain from manipulating others by refraining from using fear, intimidation, and coercion.
The current administration is using fear undermine our basic rights as citizens...particularly with regard to personal privacy. And the media are helping them. An article in the LA Times today suggests that Democrats who criticize Bush's illegal spying will be labeled as "soft on terrorism."
What they fail to mention is that those Democrats are not soft on the terrorism of their own government.
One of my other "hobbys" is debunking Email hoaxes. I use Snopes Urban Legends and Hoaxbusters. There is so much junk going around in Emails, and some of it is really scurrilous. I have a particular dislike of the libelous pieces about Hillary Clinton that have been persistently circulated by Right Wingers ever since Bill was in office. It's really nasty, vicious stuff. I was puzzled for a long time...why does the Right hate her so much? I have concluded that it is fear...that she might just become our next president! So they have been out to assassinate her character in every possible sleazy nasty way they can think of. When I get one of those, I get the scoop from Snopes or wherever, mail it back to the sender and tell him'her to issue a retraction to everyone they sent it to. Sometimes, if they haven't blind copied I do it myself.
I doubt that history will consider my output of any great significance. I just hope to influence a few people.
With all due respect, I disagree. You believe in God, and I assume you are a moral person with a conscience. I do not believe in God, and you have no right or justification for assuming that I am not a moral person with a conscience.
Reagan was not the sharpest tool in the shed. But all politicians have made pious statements to keep the support of the religious block of voters. It's too bad they have to do this, but it is a fact of American political life. The tyranny of the majority dictates that.
Yes, I know about that treaty, and you are correct that it is a very important and oft-quoted document that establishes beyond any doubt that our nation is in no way a "Christian Nation."
My intent with this article was to quote the early founders of the nation, since many on the Christian Right constantly, and incorrectly, state that they were all devout Christians.
Thanks for reminding me of this important official government document that goes further to nail down the sectarian nature of our government.
And please accept my apologies for not responding to you comment sooner. We have been out of town...hiking in Yosemite...for the past week.
You've prompted me to research more of his writings - thank you.
Very well written and thoroughly enjoyed.
There are many in our country who claim that we live in a "Christian Nation," and that all the founders were devout Christians. Even if that were the case, the Constitution makes it clear that religion has no role to play in our government. But, as the quotes above prove, many of the founders were NOT Christians...an inconvenient truth that the Religious Right has been trying to shout down for many years.
He was an advocate of republicanism and liberalism - although I don't know that he would recognize our versions of them.
Thanks again!