Man vs. God

There was an excellent debate ("God vs. Man") in last weekend's Wall Street Journal between two academic scholars who have spent their professional lives studying religion and the origins of belief in God. One, Karen Armstrong is an ex-nun and author of "The History of God," among others. The others, Richard Dawkins, is a professed atheist whose recent book "The God Delusion" was a best seller. I learned something new from reading it, particularly from Armstrong.

Like "many of the most influential Christian, Muslim and Jewish thinkers" of the past, Armstrong sees God as a "symbol," not as "hard fact." By "symbol," she means something that "points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence . . . whose existence is intuited by means of spiritual exercises." How beautifully said, I thought to myself. This is an idea of God I can believe in.

She went on to say that Genesis -- the "creation hymn" she calls it -- was not intended by its writers to be taken literally. Rather, she says, it was "a gentle polemic against Babylonian religion." And until the 17th century, Christian scholars, including St. Augustine, "insisted that if a biblical text contradicted reputable science, it must be interpreted allegorically."

This interpretation, she says, was "standard practice in the West until the 17th century. Then, "in an effort to emulate the exact scientific method, Christian leaders begain to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history." (italics mine).

It would be good if the 50% of Americans who take the Bible literally were aware of this historical fact.

We Are All Atheists

All devout believers are atheists about other religions. Evangelical Christians are atheists vis-a-vis Islam. And Muslims are atheists vis-a-vis Christianity.


Yet, the stigma on the term "atheist" remains. Politicians who proclaim atheism lose elections. There is one California congressman who's a professed atheist, but the other 434 claim to be religious believers. How many politicians really believe in religion is an open question. The answer is unknown, but I would guess the percentage is fairly small. Maybe some will leave diaries.

Stop Picking on the Post Office

I am tired of the Republican Right denigrating and ridiculing the post office. I think they do a pretty good job. Delivering a letter across the country in two days for 41 cents is not a bad deal. And their latest compaign, "If it fits it ships" is brilliant.

Yet I agree, in this age of email and FedEx we could gradually disband the USPS and be no worse off. We'd pay more, but the government would save money, too.

Now they're comparing the "public option" to the post office, a comparison that makes no sense. Knock it off. The employees of the post office deserve more than that.

The Mean-Spirited Right

The brouhaha over Obama's upcoming talk to school children is shameful. It's an insult to the office of the presidency and disrespectful to Obama himself. Politics aside, he's a good man and a great role model.

The Right in this country -- or at least those who control the message -- is mean-spirited and demagogic. It's sad.

More Than We Are Worth

According to David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office, the American people "owe more than they are worth." We are "in the hole for $56 trillion," if you include Medicare and Social Security obligations.

The piece, which appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, points out that $56 million is more than we are worth as a nation (and these figures predate the start of the recession). More than we are worth!

$56 trillion is over four times our GDP. These are alarming numbers, and the gap keeps growing. (The GDP of the entire world is only $70 trillion).

Obviously, we are in trouble. Yet we never seem able to set our course in the right direction. We muddle around and nothing happens. We can blame Congress, but much of the fault is with our system.

To circumvent the legislative process, Walker recommends creating a "Fiscal Futures Commission" comprised of the best people and the smartest people we can find. Experts of course, but also business people, a union leader or two, retired politicans, academics, and representing a fair mix of ideologies.

The Commission would hold hearings across the country with the goal of moving toward a consensus on fiscal reform. When they got that consensus -- and they would eventually -- they would present Congress with a "grand bargain" on "entitlement and budget control reforms."

And here's the clincher:

The entire plan would voted yes or no vote by Congress, "subject to only limited amendments" (I'd prefer "no amendments.").

Like the Base Closings Commission, this "grand bargain" would give individual Congressman "cover" in a way that the usual legislative process does not. It's likely it would also result in a far better plan, rather than one that's driven far too much by the campaign contributions of special interests.

Atheists Against Abortion

I wrote this first entry, entitled Atheists Against Abortion, a few months ago, but never posted it. I just reread it and I think it's a good one to start with.

I read awhile back that many atheists, me included, resent the assumption that -- because they're atheists -- they must therefore be pro-choice. The fact is, many atheists are against abortion on non-religious grounds. I’m one of them.

(Interesting aside: we're all atheists toward some religion. I happen to be atheist toward all of them. I am, however, agnostic -- i.e., "I don't know" -- toward the existence of a "higher power," the nature of which, if one exists, no human can evem begin to understand. We may, or may not, find out more when we die.)

My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with God or religion. My reasoning is based on simple fairness and common sense. To me, it's scientifically obvious that life begins at conception. The pro-choicers like to deny this, sometimes out of ignorance, but more often out of avoidance of guilt. They like to say a fetus is no more than a "blob of protoplasm" or collection of non-human cells – classic, self-serving casuistry, it seems to me. Some pro-choicers argue that a fetus is not human "until it can survive outside the womb," which has to be the silliest rationalization of all. A newborn can't survive -- on its own -- outside the womb either. Does that make it less than human?

A fetus is clearly human in the most important sense: It has a unique identity from the moment of conception. None like it has ever existed before. None like it will ever exist again. Its physical appearance as an infant and adult is not yet known, but it is predestined. The essence of the fully-grown human it will become -- its personhood -- is established. So what right do we have, often in the name of nothing more than convenience, to snuff out this life? Who can say what his or her destiny might have been, or what he or she might have achieved? That's my objection to abortion.

However, outlawing abortion is the not answer. We tried that. The answers lie in education and making adoption readily available. Young people must be educated about sex, told that the fetus IS indeed a human being. And therefore he or she (not “IT”) has a right to live. There are no excuses today for "unwanted pregnancy." Lack of education is the reason the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. in nine times Italy's rate.

The goal should be to make abortion a rare occurrence. It’s not hard to convince a teen, or anyone, that an unwanted pregnancy can complicate and jeopardize one's future. Nor is it hard to show them practical means to avoid it. Few unmarried young people, if fully informed, would set out to get pregnant. It happens because of ignorance, carelessness, immaturity, and not taking responsibility.

When pregnancies do happen, then I believe the woman should be counseled and provided with medical support. Do they want to keep the baby or give it up for adoption? In either case, they should be provided with medical care at public expense. The fact that carrying the baby to term is uncomfortable, inconvenient or embarrassing for the mother is hardly justification for eliminating the human being growing inside her.

I have decided to start writing in my blog again. There are times I want to share an idea or opinion and a blog is a good way to do it. I worry, though, that I will start it and not keep it up, but I'll try.