Perhaps you have noticed a tone that has developed in my posts recently. I have been taking some shots at religion. For the longest time I have had a "believe and let believe" attitude toward the subject of religion, but lately I have been moved to reconsider that stance. Primarily due to the appalling ignorance I see coming from many religious zealots.
I am not here to tell you what to believe or to belittle any one's religious beliefs. Where I have decided to draw the line is in the areas where religious belief impinges upon the well-being of society in general or me in particular.
I also have to say that I voted for George Bush twice and did so for a specific reason. I believe that religious terrorists are willing and able to kill us in large numbers unless someone steps up to stop them. I believed at the time that George W. was the best choice based on that criterion. Unfortunately, the politics of the situation muddied the water and it hasn't gone as well as I had hoped it would.
An unfortunate side effect of supporting this particular gang of hawks in the war on terrorists, is that they have a less-than-desirable constituency that comes along as part of the package. It is like marrying perfectly lovely woman and then finding out that she has a weird family that is moving in too.
The Munsters-like bunch that comes along with the Republicans includes biblical literalists, creationists, people opposed to stem-cell research based upon the notion that it is better to throw an unwanted fetus in the trash, than to use it for medical and scientific research, opponents of gays, opponents of contraception and on and on. My objection is not to anyone holding an opinion based upon their religion belief on any of these subjects or the myriad of others that I didn't list, but rather I object to the government catering to a particular religious point of view.
I am personally opposed to abortion. I would not however, subscribe to the idea that I should to try to elect candidates specifically because they would vote to ban abortion altogether. Nor would I participate in restricting the right of another to make a personal decision for abortion.
Conservative religious views are by definition resistant to progress. For example, if your view is that the earth is a mere six thousand years old, you have reached a dead end in the study of many of the sciences. What's the point? Why study fossils if you believe that God put them there as a sort of decoration when he molded the earth in its present form?
I strongly object to the idea that teaching evolution in schools requires the teaching of unscientific religious nonsense to balance it. God made it, is the answer to every question according to the literalist. We don't even need to send kids to school to learn that. This is approximately the same as teaching that some people believe in gravity, but an alternate possibility is that we are kept glued to Earth by the weight of angels sitting on us.
There were two things in the news today that are germane to the point I am trying to make here.
First, the Grand Canyon Visitors Center is selling a book which proposes the idea that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old. There has been an ongoing battle to get them to remove it, but pressure from the religious right has been sufficient to stop the Park Service from doing so.
I found this bit of verbal tap dancing particularly revealing.
"We do not use the creationist text in our teaching, nor do we endorse its content. However, it is not our place to censor alternate beliefs," Park Service spokesman David Barna said.
Want to bet that if I wrote a book proposing that the Grand Canyon was dug by Zeus using a big shovel, that they wouldn't have the same openness to my idea? It is pure Christian fundamentalism that keeps the book there.
The second item involves Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It seems that the cabblies want the right to refuse service to passengers carrying alcohol or with dogs, based upon their religious belief. The rule has been that if a cabbie refuses a fare, he goes to the back of the line, and waits up to two hours to get another turn. The airport authority had been considering accommodating these drivers and allowing them to remain at the front of the line until a suitable fare happens along, but has now discarded that idea.
Perhaps this seems trivial, but it is the old slippery slope. What will they object to next? Operating a cab requires a government license and is a public service. You do not get to make the rules based upon your religion.
Anyway that is my rant for today. It may be illogical in places, but it is my point of view and because we live in a land of personal freedom, you can choose to disagree.
Merle.
Things in this blog represented to be fact, may or may not actually be true. The writer is frequently wrong, sometimes just full of it, but always judgemental and cranky
Tag: Daily Life
Personal Finance
Humor
3 comments:
"...people opposed to stem-cell research based upon the notion that it is better to throw an unwanted fetus in the trash, than to use it for medical and scientific research..."
As I understand it, the real argument is that people will become less afraid of creating unwanted fetuses if they know they can be used for good, and so they will make more. And since all fetuses should be wanted, that would be a tragedy.
Sadly I agree with way too many parts of this post. I have to keep reminding myself there really are a lot of non-extremist religious people who are better and happier people because of their religion.
I agree with all of it (except the voting for Bush part).
Well, that was an interesting post Merle....
Post a Comment