Tag Archive for 'religion'Page 2 of 5

Faith and politics

I am not a man of faith. In fact, I’m quite the opposite. I’m not ashamed to say this because it’s the truth and I feel no need to disguise the fact that I am borderline atheist. Not really, but close. As such, it really, really bugs me when people support a political candidate because they’re religious. I hate it. I don’t mind that politicians are religious, but I fail to see why people care that much about it.

Case in point: Barack Obama. He recently announced his plans to run for president in 2008, which pits him against two much more popular Democratic candidates: Hilary Clinton and John Edwards. But everyone who’s heard of Obama likes him. He’s young, he’s fresh, he’s clean and articulate (if Joe Biden is to be believed), he’s black…and he’s very into his faith. Great! …why does that matter?

Faith, from what I know about it, is a personal thing. Gerald Ford had it right when he said he would not use his faith to sway voters in the 1976 election, which some blame for his loss to Jimmy Carter, very much a “family values” kind of guy. Ford was as well, but he felt he shouldn’t have to tell that to people. He wanted to be elected for his merits as a politician, not because he was Christian or family friendly. And I think that’s how it should be.

Unfortunately, few people think like that. They want a leader with morals. That’s always nice, but one needn’t be Christian in order to have morals. Christians are just as fallible as the rest of us. Everyone makes mistakes; they aren’t going to lead the country better if they believe in God because belief in God does not make one a good politician, or even a good leader. Plenty of great leaders were not Christian. I shouldn’t even need to name them.

Personally, I would think a secular president would be a better leader. Most voters would, erroneously, associate such a person’s lack of religion with a lack of morals. However, a secular president would be more focused on improving the country as a whole without getting bogged down in issues conflicting with his or her beliefs. Take gay marriage for instance. Any religious president will most likely have trouble accepting gay marriage, since it would conflict with his or her beliefs. A secular president, on the other hand, would really have no reason to oppose gay marriage. He or she would recognize gay Americans as being no different than other Americans and thus allow them the rights they deserve.

Needless to say, this would offend a great deal of Americans, which is very unfortunate. Too many people associate religion with being a good president, which is not necessarily true. A good president leaves his beliefs out of legislation. A good president does what’s best for the country, not just what fits his beliefs. They can be whatever religion they want, I really don’t care. But I won’t vote for a candidate who thinks he or she can be voted in solely on the fact they’re religious because candidates who overemphasize their faith during their run for the presidency will keep that emphasis in office, which will inevitably lead to legislation based on that faith.

The United States is a secular nation. Let’s keep it that way, eh?

Sphere: Related Content

Yoga in school

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of yoga to relax you before a test, right? Wrong. Apparently, practicing yoga in public school encourages kids to explore other religions. Which is bad. Eh, what now?

According to an MSNBC article I was reading earlier, in 2002, a woman by the name of Tara Guber wanted to introduce yoga into public schools in order to help relax children before tough tests. No harm in that, right? Well, not everyone saw it that way, as both Christian fundamentalists and secular parents teamed up to accuse her of being a “new age nut” out to brainwash their children. Right. It’s understandable from a certain standpoint because some of the parents claimed it violated the separation of church and state since Yoga is an important part of the Hindu religion, but still, brainwashing? Yes, let’s convert school-age kids to Hinduism so they can…what, take over the playground? Come on.

Guber finally decided to eliminate almost every spiritual aspect from the yoga curriculum and it was accepted by over 100 schools nationwide, including the one at which it was so vehemently opposed five years ago.

But that’s not good enough for some people. Critics claim that even this version of yoga “goads young people into exploring other religions and mysticism.” I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Ignorance of other religions inevitably leads to conflict when the known and the unknown collide. Just look at things today. Few people know enough about Islam to realize that it’s not a “terrorist religion.” They just hear that Muslim terrorists are killing people, so they assume Islam praises this sort of thing. Of course, the media doesn’t help. But the simple fact of the matter remains: if people knew more about Islam, they’d realize it is no more violent than, say, Judaism or Christianity. So it seems to me that learning about other religions is a very good thing.

Of course, there are other critics who have more reasonable objections, saying that yoga is an important religious practice in Hindu. One practices yoga in order to reach enlightenment. It was never meant to be a fitness program. But hey, Westerners have been corrupting other religions for hundreds of years. And since yoga has been shown to improve grades and behavior, I have no objection to it in school. I think the benefits here outweigh the doubts.

Sphere: Related Content

Contextual ads

Ever since I wrote that long post about religion a couple days back, my AdSense ads have been showing links to religious websites. Ironic, considering how non-religious I am.

The abortion rant

This is a rant about abortions. If the mere mention of the word abortion brings up mental images of dismembered babies in trash cans, you should probably leave before I mention the word abortion again. Oops.

So, on with the rant. I am pro-choice. Always have been and probably always will be. Now, before any of you jump on my back and berate me for being a baby-killing godless liberal or something along those lines, let me make it clear that I do not love abortion. I see it as a last-ditch option for people who really need it, such as rape victims or people who used every form of birth control known to man and still managed to have a baby. I don’t see it as a form of birth control. If you can’t figure out how to put on a condom or take a pill, you probably shouldn’t be having sex anyways. I am pro-choice because I want people to have the option of having an abortion. I’m big on rights and freedoms. Banning abortions is denying people the right to have one, and I can’t abide by that. Besides, outlawing abortion will just lead to a rise in illegal (and thus unsafe because well-trained, upstanding doctors wouldn’t perform banned operations) abortions in back alleys and seedy clinics. If someone really wants (or needs) an abortion, they will get one regardless of what the law says. The amount of illegal drug use in this country should be enough to prove that point, however unfortunate that may be. And what reasons are there for banning abortion? Personal? Moral? Personal and moral beliefs have no place in legislation. They’re there, of course, but they shouldn’t be. Laws should be made on what’s truly good for the people, not what the lawmakers believe to be good.

But are there reasons for opposing abortion other than the obvious moral ones? I can’t think of any. A few days ago, someone told me that there were non-moral reasons, but they neglected to tell me what they were. Typical. They just didn’t expect me to call them on their unfounded argument. Anyways, they could have meant economic reasons. But that falls apart rather quickly as well. It costs less to abort a fetus than to raise a child through 18 years. A first-trimester abortion? Several hundred dollars. Raising a kid from birth to college? A quarter of a million dollars. Ouch. Abortions aren’t going to significantly reduce the workforce, either. Indeed, the number of abortions is growing rapidly and has since the early nineties. But the birthrate has also increased. Since not every person who gets pregnant has an abortion, it’s reasonable to conclude that a fair amount of babies will be born in any given year. And since the majority of these children will grow up healthy and wind up working in some career (be it white- or blue-collar), the workforce will always have a hefty influx of 18-year-olds who were thrown out on their own with a warning to get a job and enough cash to buy a Vespa. So there’s no good economic reason for banning abortions.

Heck, I can’t even think of any other possibilities. Economic was the only one I came up with, and I couldn’t even figure out a good argument for that. So it appears that the only reasons there exist people who label themselves pro-life are moral ones. The main one is that abortion is murder. Fair enough. A fetus is a living being, so aborting it is killing it. But is this wrong, I ask you? Most people don’t find anything wrong with eating a chicken. Few find anything morally reprehensible about exterminating mice. And almost no one objects to stomping on a cockroach when it scurries out from under the washing machine. Chickens, mice, and cockroaches are all living beings. Yet most pro-lifers hold to a double-standard. They might picket an abortion clinic while wearing a leather belt, go home to turkey dinner and yell at a few pro-choicers out the window, and call the Orkin man while carrying the baby they conceived after being raped by their ex-boyfriend. And I bet half of them are in favor of the “war” in Iraq. Double standard.

But, of course, there is a difference, as most of these people would tell you. Fetuses are somehow…”better” than other animals. How so? Because fetuses allegedly have souls. They are human, as if that makes any difference. Humans are animals, and that’s all I’ll say on the subject because I don’t want to drag myself off on a tangent in the middle of my argument. Indeed, fetuses are human. They have human DNA. They exhibit human behavior and have human-like features (in the first and second trimesters, that is; by the third trimester, they’ve become miniature humans in appearance). But does this really make a difference? Again, that’s a moral decision. If you’re like me, you callously say that at this stage, life can easily be created again. It doesn’t matter terribly much. I don’t pride myself on saying that, but it’s how I justify abortions. Either that or I forgo the issue altogether and justify it based on rights. On the other hand, you might hold life very dear, in which case I hope you don’t eat animals and are dead-set against war and the death penalty. Whatever the case, your own reasons probably sound the most right to you, so I don’t even know why I’m bothering to write about it. I had a point, but I lost it amidst my jumbled thoughts. I might come back to it if I find it.

It’s clear the moral issue surrounding abortion will never come to a sufficient compromise. But it’s equally clear that denying people the right to have an abortion is the absolute wrong course of action. There is no single moral standard on which to base laws. And there are plenty of sound reasons to leave the option available to those who need it. I suppose it would be best to leave this up to the individual states, but I fear that many states will go the way of South Dakota and ban abortion outright. Then again, I don’t trust our current federal government with the decision, either. Our dear president has a habit of forcing his morals on the American people, whether it’s for our good or not. It’s a good thing he’s only got two more years, or I’d be afraid for the fate of democracy in this country. Can anyone say “the United Kingdom of America”?

Anyways, I don’t want to start ranting about Bush and his ill-conceived Patriot Act and NCLB (not to mention this “war” on terrorism and our illegal occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq), so I’ll stop now and go to bed. Or something. Maybe I’ll check under my bed for FBI agents…

Sphere: Related Content

FOX vs. the crazy lady

You’ll probably never hear me say this again, but I love Sean Hannity. Why? Because of this.

God, I hate people like that. If I could somehow track this woman down and run her over with sharp pointy studded tires and get away with it, I would.

[Future Cody's note: Not only is the video no longer there, but I can't even find another version. Basically, Sean Hannity was trying to conduct an interview with some lady from the Westboro Baptist Church, but it wound down to him blowing up at her for being such a bigoted and crazy woman. Of course, that was when she even let him get a word in edgewise.]

Sphere: Related Content




Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States