Politics and Religion - Who Can Tell Us What We Can and Cannot Do?
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2008
By Ben Morrish
Ben, this is very well written and very well argued. A very good job of clear thinking and clearly delivered. DianneThank you Dianne!
Well done Ben. Quite an article. Not sure that we will ever live in a truly secular society that behaves according to a common moral code if that code must be defined in law. I agree completely that you can't legislate morality. I think that government intervention in the form of endless unnecessary laws is incrementally limiting freedom and thereby choking our democracy. Missing LinkI certainly agree that at present governments (well, specifically the US and UK ones, I don't have much experience with the others) are legislating for the sake of legislating, rather than legislating only for the common good. It's a tough time for freedom and democracy.
hi ben, i don't think anyone could have covered these issues this well. this piece was excellent. you are a writer, and i hope you keep writing. it was brave of you to take on these issues, when so many millions of people are so divided. the facts spoke for themselves, and you put them together precisely. thanks for sharing, best regards, sue thomThanks for reading Sue!
I'm afraid that your references to "Bronze" age scriptures and "misinterpretations" (did you mean mistranslations?) reveals a predjudice against religion that permeates your article. Otherwise, very well written.I enjoyed reading your article you make some very interesting points. "thank you"Thanks David!Bronze Age is a factual statement, as many of the scriptures in the Bible (and elsewhere) where written in the Bronze Age. As an example, the book of Leviticus was written between 1440 and 1400 BC, which falls into the (late) Bronze Age, which lasted until 1200 BC. "Misinterpretations" is also correct, as in history people have interpreted certain aspects in incompatible ways, hence they can't all have been right and some of them must have been misinterpretations (and there has been a lot of violence between groups defined only by their differing interpretations of the same scripture). Mistranslation is closely linked, as when the translators misinterpret a section they will probably perform their translation based on their own interpretation. This will tend to perpetuate that particular misinterpretation into the future as it has become "the text". As to prejudice, "making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event", I disagree - my distaste for fundamentalist religion and using religious scriptures as a source of (or authority for) morality is founded on extensive research into the subject, and has increased as I have learned more about it.As a seminary student and one time agnostic I too have extensively studied this subject.The term "Bronze Age" is only partially correct in that it identifies only a portion of the period in which the Scriptures were written. New Testament Scriptures were written as recently as the First Century. Research has shown that the Bible is perhaps the most accurately translated manuscript of antiquity when compared to other texts of similar age. For additional information on this subject I would refer you to Josh McDowell's excellent book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nevertheless, this article alludes to the Scriptures in such a way as to infer that they are archaic, obsolete and, therefore, irrelevent to the subject of morality and politics. However, any perusal of the Bible will show that the entire book relates at length about the struggle between politics, morals and religion. To dismiss the Scriptures from any discussion on this subject is to negate the historical impact the Bible has had on our political system. It is a well established fact that our legal system is derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage... Hello! That's the Bible folks.Dismissing the scriptures in any discussion of contemporary morality or politics is entirely right and proper, and does not negate any positive effects they may have had on our modern political system (unless we dismiss the modern political system, which no-one is suggesting). In many places in the New Testament there are references (including statements by Jesus himself) to the continuing authority of the laws laid down in the Old Testament, that is to say - Bronze Age laws. The fact that post-Bronze Age writers have stated that those laws are still authoritative does not change the fact that they are writing about Bronze Age laws. Josh McDowell has been roundly refuted by both atheist and Christian critics. Our current system has of course been influenced by Western Judeo-Christian heritage (and by ancient Greece and Rome and many other cultures), but it is stretching the truth somewhat to claim it is derived from it in any significant way. Trial by jury and other key aspects are relatively recent. Of the 10 commandments, many are not enshrined in law today, and the ones that are are the ones that are common to pretty much every society even before the Old Testament was written - "don't murder people" for example. It is a fact that the US constitution is explicitly secular.See also the "Treaty of Tripoli", article 11: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
Politics and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Although the US Constitution wants them to be separated, they cannot be separated. There is no place on earth where they are truly separate. Ever watch the pope visit the president? That visit is celebrated, even though it is technically unconstitutional. On the topic of abortion. Claiming to understand anything about what a zygote or any other prebirth form of human is thinking or feeling is simple human arrogance. Just began we as human beings cannot detect something a life is doing does not mean it is not doing anything. Did you hear that car accident 400 miles away? Gee, I guess it didn't happen then. When you have kids, your life is about your kids. The best way not to have a child if you don't want to is not to get pregnant. A lot of people don't like this simple truth because it means they have to control themselves and be responsible for their actions. People who believe their unborn child is there to serve them think it is ok to kill it if they don't want the child. Put it up for adoption. This is not rocket science.While there is of course a lot science does not yet know (and may never know), science knows enough for us to state with confidence that a zygote or even an embryo is incapable of suffering in any meaningful way, and certainly not capable of suffering as much as other lives we are happy to take (cows, pigs etc). There is no human arrogance involved there - just well established science. The human arrogance is revealed when we claim that a ball of cells with no developed central nervous system is more imporant or can suffer more than (for example) an adult pig simply, because that ball of cells has human DNA and could one day become a human being. Most abort naturally without even being noticed - if you believe that these are genuine human lives then efforts should be made to detect these and have proper funeral services for them. I agree that not getting pregnant is the best way to not have a child. This is why I stated that in an ideal world there would be no need for abortion. However, we live in the real world. If you have kids your life should be about them, they should be your first priority. If you have zygote or embryo at a time when you are not willing or able to put the potential child first, you should have the choice to abort before it becomes meaningfully human, for the child's sake as much as anything else.
Ben, while I might disagree with some of your points, I must commend you on your calm, well-thought-out delivery. If folks who opposed your views could respond in the same rational manner, people in this country might actually be able to have the "dialog" we keep hearing about but never see, because the debate breaks down into yelling and throwing barbs instead if discussing the actual issues. Ah well, one of these days.Hi Danny, thanks for your comments. On issues like abortion where people have deeply held and passionate views it can be hard to keep a productive dialog going - often it gets to the point where the two parties simply have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately legislators don't have that luxury - they have to allow it or prohibit it. I think it is right to allow it, but I wouldn't like to have to be the one who draws the line between the gestation length where abortion is allowed and where it isn't!
A zygote and fetus does not suffer in any meaningful way? Meaningful to who? You were allowed to be born, so you would not know. By requiring something to be "meaningful" to you before it is worth your attention and respect, you are showing your arrogance. If your mother aborted you before you were born, you would not have the opportunity to live your life, or have opinions about anything. That simple truth stands above all science.Meaningful to anyone, including the zygote / foetus. They don't have the physical capacity to suffer by any reasonable definition of "suffer". This is not arrogance (I'm not putting myself above anyone else), it is just the way things are. If I was aborted before I was born obviously I would not have the opportunity to live my life or have opinions. That is a simple truth but has no bearing on the issue. I would not have suffered, indeed I would not have been "me" at all at the time of the abortion. The aborted zygote / foetus ("potential me") would not have had a personality or self-awareness. "Me", the person, would never have existed, and thus would not have been able to regret that non-existence. We don't need to worry about the feelings of all t he potential humans that never came to be , we need to make sure the ones where that potential is fulfilled have the best experience of life possible.
I think I am starting to understand what you are trying to say. You obviously agree with me that if your mother aborted you, you would not be alive. You say that has no bearing on the issue. The issue, to you, must be whether or not a being suffered upon it's death or journey into non existence. If that life did not suffer, then there is no problem. That also says, as long as you didn't suffer, it doesn't matter to you whether you are alive and living your life or not. Your though process tells me you believe that as long as you don't suffer, it doesn't matter whether you are here or not - no regrets either way. My attitude goes beyond the question of suffering. I think every baby deserves the opportunity to step into this world and live life. Some suffer in the process, from medical issues, some come in healthy. I would like to see all come in and live. I have experienced physical injury in my life. I suffered during the healing process. I am alive and well and very happy to be here. I would not give that up simply to avoid the previous suffering I experienced.I agree on most of what you say there, I think where we differ (although correct me if I'm wrong) is that you view the zygote / embryo as a person, whereas I view it only as a potential person at that stage. Of course many of us suffer but get through it and maybe even come out stronger as a result. Now that I am here, a living person, I would not choose to give it up unless my suffering became extreme beyond imagination, but that's now that I'm here to have an opinion on the matter - now that I exist I'm biased on the subject of my own existence (to say the least ;-) ). Since I consider the zygote / embryo that gets aborted to be only a potential person I don't believe they should have any particular rights, any more than those potential people I deprive of the opportunity of life every time I choose not to have unprotected sex . Since I don't believe there is a specific moment where a developing foetus becomes a person ( I view it as a gradual scale rather than a discrete one), I have difficulty conceiving what precise point should be chosen as the cut-off point, but I have no difficulty in earnestly supporting early-pregnancy abortions for women who want them. The problem for me is how late is ok, and it is one I think cannot be precisely answered, but for practical reasons must be determined arbitrarily, but based on the best evidence we can obtain.
Benjamin K Morrish is a UK-based amateur writer, interested in a wide range of topics from science to silliness.
He enjoys debating science, pseudoscience and religion, and spends a lot of time over at Richard Dawkins.net.
When he isn't there, he can usually be found writing his blog, All True.
Despite having passed the big 3-0 and having the cynicism of a man twice his age, he regularly gets asked for identification when trying to purchase alcohol.
Leave a Public Comment or Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.
