Abortion

No issue is more contentious or morally complex than abortion because it deals with the rights of two individuals and when we achieve our moral right to life, liberty and property. As with almost any issue, moral or otherwise, when trying to think through where we stand on it, the place to start is the extremes.

Aborting a healthy fetus in the process of being born can only be considered murder.  On the other hand, forcing a 13 year old girl who is 1 hour pregnant as a result of being raped by her father to carry the baby to  term, is nothing short of a moral travesty.  Yet we insist on reducing abortion down to Pro-Life and Pro-Choice labels.  The fact is we don't have the necessary information to make an informed moral choice in many cases.  We can draw an artificial limit, say the first trimester, but that won't cover all situations in determining by whose or what authority we make these decisions--God, the Law, or a family and their doctor.

Any claim to divine authority is specious given that there is nothing in the Bible about it, and all we have are those putting words in God's mouth that the human right to life starts at conception.  Some even claim that divine determination is violated by contraception.   On the face of it, for those appealing to revealed religion for their authority, abortion is being used as an instrument of power and control.

At the other end, the same could be said about statists who would use the law to give complete authority to the mother with no rights whatever for the baby until it is born, which is no less an artificial limit, or less "holy", than conception.

The fact is we already limit human rights according to age, and few would argue with it.  We limit a child's right to liberty and property until they reach some arbitrary age of majority at which point they legally acquire the rights they didn't have a few moments before.  Some would say the right to life is different, but tell that to the billions throughout history who lived under horrible oppression, and others who risked or lost their lives in an effort to achieve that liberty.  The question this raises is, why isn't there some theological, or secular, explanation for the arbitrary acquisition of our rights to liberty and property?  The Bible says that you must not commit murder and that you must not steal.  But then it also gives tacit approval to slavery and human sacrifice.

The Golden Rule is the only moral guidance we have, or need, except for the moral complexities of dealing with our children--born and unborn.

This complex issue pushes to the limit the principle that the only thing that should be legislated is morality.  It would seem, at this point, that all we can legislate would be in the realm of the previously mentioned extremes, and each of those come to a point where that legislation would be arbitrary and thus without moral authority.  We must acknowledge the complexity of this issue and come, somehow, to realize that this must be done on a case by case basis, with the mother making the decision in this area where the law cannot reach, with the advice of her family, her doctor, her society and her faith.

In this "no-man's land" or grey area (between the extremes which can be legislated), the woman must have the final authority, not because it's her body, but because it's her child.  And since it is still ultimately a moral issue, the freedom of religion is the final legal authority for her moral authority.  The current legal problem here in the US where a retail store chain (Hobby Lobby) is being forced at the cost of over a million dollars a day to provide health care funds for abortions against the religious beliefs of a private company and any number of its employees, is an egregious example of the violation of the necessary separation of church and state; not to mention the First Amendment to our Constitution.

Religion vs. Philosophy

Why is religion, and philosophy for that matter, important?

Originally, somewhere back in civilization’s deep, dark past, religion was the equivalent of science. Grog, in his cave, tried to make sense of the natural world around him; a nature that appeared to be a benefactor and source of fear at the same time. Truth and knowledge were sought. But it wasn’t long before some were able to use that fear and confusion as a source of control if it was manipulated properly.

Later still, someone developed the carrot and stick idea and added rewards from the gods in this life as well as the next, for proper behavior. The original morality consisted of a simple form of the Golden Rule, but it was necessary to include honoring and providing for the gods as part of that favored behavior; and as time passed many more extraneous rules were added to the code of behavior, which eventually ascended to greater importance than proper behavior towards each other. Then finally someone consolidated all the rules from all those gods into rules from just One God, and that mixture of mono/polytheism is where we stood at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment and the ascendancy of science and the scientific method.

While science has been very successful at acquiring knowledge, the issues of morality (a code of conduct for how we treat each other), virtue (a code for our personal behavior), and of fulfillment and purpose in this life (and perhaps the next), appeared to be beyond the reach of the scientific method. So religion, with all its baggage, maintained its position of spiritual authority—albeit a reduced one.

Enter philosophy, the attempt to use reason to combine knowledge and the metaphysical. But the latter wasn’t subject to reason since there was no knowledge available (other than pure hearsay) with which we could deal. Thus two usually unstated assumptions were made: Human life is of ultimate value, and a laissez faire divine being created the universe. If neither of those was the case there was no possibility for good order or hope for an ultimate purpose.

Today, we stand on the verge of the realization that morality is the only thing that should be the subject of civilization’s legal code—we should never legislation personal virtue. Organized religion continues to fight this principle as if its life depends on it, which it does. It won’t submit to the ascendancy of philosophy for the same reason that governments resist submission to political and economic reason…..the ability to use power to favor an individual or an elite class structure.

Though we have made great strides in science and technology, it appears that we are no closer to conquering evil with good because we still depend far too much on emotion to make our decisions. Progress will not be made until we learn to employ our emotions as the engine to pursue our goals, with reason at the wheel.

Separation of Church and State

“The morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.”—James Madison 

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."--John Adams

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."—George Washington

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” ― Thomas Paine

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people (the First Amendment) which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”—Thomas Jefferson
_______________________________________________________________________________

There are plenty more such quotes, but they won’t impress anyone determined to believe that separation of church and state is defended only by a small vocal group.  Most people haven’t noticed how many believers in God, including a surprising number of Christians are for the absolute separation of church and state.  Baptists have been among the most stalwart supporters, and it was in their defense that Jefferson created his now famous “wall of separation” analogy, in 1802, expounding on the meaning of the First Amendment.

John Leland, a Baptist minister from Massachusetts, supported Madison against Patrick Henry’s attempt to establish state support for religion in Virginia.  Leland said, “If all the souls in a government were saints of God, (and) should they be formed into a society by law, that society could not be a Gospel Church, but a creature of state."  That Baptist position survives to this day in the American Baptist Convention, which resolved in 1963, and reiterated in 1983 and 1993, “that separation of church and state is central to our American heritage; that it has made possible a measure of freedom not previously achieved under any other system; that it is indispensable to our national policy of equal rights for all [religions], and special privileges for no religion.”  Freewill Baptists, American/Northern Baptists, Bible Baptists, General Baptists, National Baptists, Primitive Baptists as well as Methodists hold similar positions.

Where then does the virulent and vocal opposition to the mere mention of separation of church and state come from?  From the Southern Baptists, who split from their brethren in 1845 in order to defend the biblical sanctity of slavery.  They are now the dominant evangelical leaders opposing separation of church and state, even though in 1963 their Baptist Faith and Message said:  “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.  Church and state should be separate.”

It wasn’t until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention voted to condemn its historic support for slavery and failure to confront racism in the South.

Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance seems like such a small thing, but it is the seed of what can become a dangerous violation of  the separation principle.  And what is the motivation behind it but an attempt at indoctrination, after all.  President Eisenhower, when signing the bill to add it to the Pledge (and also "In God We Trust" to paper money, making it the country's second moto with E Pluribus Unum), said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. ... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

Spiritual weapon indeed.

The Holy of Holies

“The Truth is clever. The minute we create an idol for it, it becomes a lie.” -TPT



Is rule by fear as used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein or Taliban/Iranian theocracies et al. any different than that of the Biblical Jehovah, held by dogma to be an object of fear? Are we not taught by biblical scripture to fear God?

In I Samuel 8—“God” begrudgingly accedes to the selection of a king to reign over Israel. Why did the Israelites desire a king against "God’s wishes" for continued rule via the priests, prophets and judges with Saul as “God’s” spokesman? Because the theocratic priesthood used the name of God to justify their corruption. Samuel warned the people of the power of a king but didn’t mention that corruption would be just as much of a problem with a king as it had been with the priests and judges. The people didn’t disagree with Samuel’s warnings, so we are left to conclude that the corruption of their theocracy was worse than the picture he painted of life under a king.

History’s most successful and revered leaders lead through respect earned by demonstration of ability and integrity, not fear.
The temple in Jerusalem was designed to represent the source of fear and awe the theocracy wished to project, but it’s Holy of Holies was as empty of Truth as are all such shams created to validate the power of its custodians. It was itself an idol, and as with all idols, a lie; the great temple, adorned with flowing sacrificial blood, was constructed to shelter fear in a barren room to perpetuate and reinforce a lie. A building is a building unless it is said to be holier than the rocks and stones around it. Then it becomes an idol.  You can’t enshrine Truth in a temple or behind an altar--only in our minds and hearts.

Truth itself is the Holy of Holies, the universe its temple and the souls who seek it are its apostles.

Is Sex Unholy?

On what basis can sex be considered unholy while claiming that contraception is unholy as well. Who decides that birth control stops at conception? If not, then when does abortion become evil?

Look to the extremes. Is "aborting" a one cell zygote when the mother is pregnant as a result of being raped by her father, immoral?  Is partial-birth abortion of a healthy baby in the process of being born anything but murder?  Abortion is the most difficult moral issue we face because it involves the rights of the mother, and the question of when an embryo acquires its rights.  

Those who say human rights begin at conception based on divine revelation will be as intransigent in that belief as on all their other beliefs based purely on blind faith in the infallibility of scripture that is fraught with contradictions.  So too those who say an embryo gains it's rights somehow instantly once outside the womb, are just as tied to their blind faith of convenience as those to religious revelation.  "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are simplistic labels which are as evil in their simplicity as the immorality they claim to oppose.

There are no simple answers to the issue any more than sex can be reduced to being simple holiness or Original Sin.

What should be "fair"?.

Can life be made to be fair?  If so how should we go about achieving it?  Who decides what's fair, one person, a committee, a majority?  Would that be fair for all those who aren't that one person, or weren't on that committee or in that majority?  

We aren't all created equal.  Some have greater intelligence, creativity, physical prowess, leadership ability or health than others.  How can we make that fair, by punishing the superior ones and bringing them down to the level of the most inferior ones? 

There is only one thing that can and should be made equal or fair, the moral right of all adults to their life, liberty and property

Afterlife?

The idea of an afterlife in Abrahamic religions does not go back as far in history as popularly supposed.  The first indication of a belief in the idea occurs in 2 Maccabees, about the revolt against the Seleucid King Antiochus Epiphanes, who conquered Jerusalem in 167 BCE and proceeded to start killing all Jews who wouldn't stop practicing their religion and participate in his Hellenistic, pagan religion.  The revolt against his reign was led by Judas Maccabeus who ousted the Seleucids from Jerusalem and the Temple in 164 BCE, (which is still celebrated by Jews as the Festival of Chanukah).

The pertinent passage, 2 Maccabees 7:9 (written c. 124 BCE), concerns a woman who is forced to watch as her 7 sons are tortured and killed for refusing to eat pork.  Before she is martyred herself, she says, "the King of the universe will rise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws".  That idea expressed here comes well after the codification of Judaic canon.

By the time of Jesus, the Pharisees and Essenes generally believed in an afterlife, but the Sadducees, the priestly class and Roman collaborators, did not.  The above Maccabean passage sheds some light on why that was likely the case.  People who believed in a reward in the afterlife would be more likely to risk revolt even to death.  Add to that fact that revolt against Antiochus was still relatively fresh in the minds of Jews in Jesus' time, prompting them to be looking for a Maccabean like leader/messiah to oust the Romans and their lackey priesthood and royalty.  Jesus, as the Son of David with his Kingdom of Heaven drew on those powerful associations.

The attitude prior to the hope and belief expressed by the woman in the passage above, is best put by Job's question, "Can the dead live again?"--Job 14:14  Job was written/compiled probably no later than 200 years before 2 Maccabees.

Certainly the exposure of Judaism to the wide cosmopolitan array of religions and cults that accompanied the Roman conquest, had a growing influence on a belief in an afterlife.  The cults of Isis, Dionysus and Mithras, with their resurrected savior-man-gods, communion like rituals and everlasting life (not to mention the sexual exploitation) were tempting even for Jews, particularly outside of Judea.  Paul almost certainly buckled to the pressure to co-opt the popular aspect of these cults and their associated mystery religions.  It makes one wonder if the possibilities of such modification to the Jesus movement wasn't the actual substance of his epiphany on the road to Damascus.

Is there an answer to the possibility of an afterlife?  From the perspective of this blog, assuming a laissez faire God, no--at least not a divinely revealed one.  But reference my article,  The Ethernatural, for a credible suggestion concerning the possible basis for a theory of an afterlife.