Give Up Blog

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

This week in God

Some interesting religious news this week, first I would direct you to this first-ever RRPG, that is, a Rabbinical Role-Playing Game. Only you can use Rabbi conversation methods and fighting talents to discover the true meaning of Hannukah, or something. Via boingboing.

What do you think Mel?

I don't think he likes it.

The New York Times had interesting coverage this weekend of a fundamentalist minister of a St. Paul megachurch who believes religion should stay out of politics.

Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

"When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses," Mr. Boyd preached. "When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross."
...
And Mr. Boyd has a new book out, "The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church," which is based on his sermons.

Now that's my kind of fundamentalist. He has realized that the only way to save religion is to Give Up. After all, history has shown again and again that mixing religion with state just leads to contempt for both. While at Give Up we predict the attempt to regulate everyone's life by the morals of fundamentalists will be the end of the religious right (I keep waiting for them to ban the pill and sign their political death warrant), he has seen this coming and wisely advocated that his church preemptively Give Up to save themselves from ruin. Either way, Give Up is the way!

Finally, a sign that the above paragraph isn't just wishful thinking, I bring you news of the imminent end of South Dakota's abortion ban.

The vote is whether to uphold the state's draconian anti-abortion law. A "no" means the ban is rejected.

No 47
Yes 39
Undecided 14

It appears as though SD's ban is about to be invalidated (unless every undecided voter votes pro-life - unlikely). What does this mean? Surprise surprise, a majority of peope in this country are pro-choice, and do not want the morality of the minority shoved down their throats. After all, if this ban can't survive in South Dakota, exactly where are they going to find a state to enact a ban? It doesn't make Roe v. Wade seem so undemocratic after all.

2 Comments:

minimalist said...

To be fair, though, we live in a system where the rights of the minority are to be safeguarded against the whim of the majority. It's why we have an independent judiciary. Many anti-abortion activists sincerely believe that everything from blastocysts on up are deserving of the same basic humna right to live. If the majority votes to make it okay to kill fetuses at whim, who will protect the minority?

Too bad conservatives don't believe in "activist judges"!

9:41 AM, August 01, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Eh,
Don't think that's the way that is meant to be applied. For instance, a minority of people think that stopping any human heart is murder, and therefore organ donation should be prevented and people should be kept alive against their will (Schiavo). A minority of people think abortion is murder so compulsory pregnancy would be the norm. A minority of people might think kids with anencephaly are fully-fledged humans and should be kept on life support for years (this has happened). A minority of people believe that animals deserve the same rights of humans and all research on them should be stopped.

This is the minority imposing their will on the majority. If people believe ES cells are human life equivalent to mine, they are idiots, and they can choose not to support it, donate blastocysts, or benefit from therapies. They cannot, however, decide for the 70% of Americans that want the research, to stop all government funding of what most people believe, in good conscience, is a moral, ethical and legal practice that has potential to save millions of lives.

But dammit, of course you're being facetious. Still, I see that argument a lot for real, this idea that any minority, for moral reasons, can oppose the actions of the majority even when it doesn't affect them. If we allowed people to take this kind of exception to anything they didn't like, rightwingers could demand an end to ESC research, libertarians could demand an end to all taxes, pacifists could demand an end to spending on the military, I could demand an end to Dick Cheney's government-paid health care, etc.

9:27 PM, August 01, 2006