I simply don't agree with the death penalty

Seriously, just read this.

There is something incredibly sick about this whole article, especially the very last quotation:

"The simplest thing I know of is the guillotine. And I'm not at all opposed to bringing it back. The person's head is cut off and that's the end of it."

So this man is fine with mutilating a human body in the name of "justice"? This takes things too far. I'm against the death penalty period, however, mutilation and electrocution seem even more objectionable.

I suppose I don't have the energy to really collect my thoughts at the moment as I'm not feeling well, but this article just doesn't sit right with me.

It's always religion, isn't it?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/20/bible.classes.ap/index.html

I find it inderesting, though understandable, that many liberals and conservative Christians agree on this one. A class with the Christian Bible (not just "The Bible," which is also what Jews call their religious texts...I mean, I'm not going to go study the "Old Testament" in Hebrew school! It's not old to me) as the single textbook is totally inappropriate. I feel as though I do this a lot, but, to quite the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof." Focusing in on the first part, "respecting the establishment of a religion" indicates that no one religion or theological belief can be promoted as superior to others. A class with the Christian Bible as the one textbook seems to promote one religion over all others, and making the class optional is totally irrelevant. Although making the class manditory would be a huge miscarrage of legislative authority, the simple existance of a class with this subject alone is unconstitutional.

Of course, the argument can be made that the states are not subject to the statutes of the Constitution, which is a federal document. The is patently ridiculous. What is the point of having a federal Constitution if states can make laws that directly contridict what it says?

So, back to what I was saying about liberals and Conservative Christians agreeing on this one; liberals (and not-so-liberals) probably agree with my point of view. I also understand the other point of view. If you take religion seriously, you would want it taught "correctly" and it seems unlikely that a public school would be able to provide that level of depth.

Am I totally against teaching religion in public schools? Actually, no. One of the primary reasons I chose religious studies as my college major was because religion is such a huge part of public life. So few people understand religion, both their own and that of other people, and this is what leads to problems. Undersanding religion is important, and comparative religion is a class that every american student should take.

I'll post in full later

When I'm less angry over this: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

Dear Ann Coulter,

You are en evil, hateful, psychotic bitch. I do not hate people, but your brand of self indulgent bigotry is reprehensable and disgusting. I hope you rot in hell and you are a horrible excuse for a human being. Don't even try to justify what you've said and done since there is nothing you can do to right this.

Sincerely,

One of your biggest and most loyal unsupporters.

The Root of all Evil?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?ex=1327035600&en=eeed427b44065ade&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Abortion is the root of drug abuse? This woman seems to be seeking simple answers for a complicated problem. She's been sexually abused, raped, and suffered tramatic loss at a young age...yet she blames her drug abuse and abortion on her abortion alone? While I agree that abortion might lead to negative emotional effects if the women was unsure about her decision or has been convinced that abortion is morally wrong, there are so many other factors...and they can't be ignored.

Same Sex Marriage...it's time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/02/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

I'd been putting off writing about same sex marriage because I thought that the topic might be too similar to abortion, but then I saw this article from my home state, and it's time to voice my opinions. I doubt that this blog will make a difference for the people of Massachusetts, but I have strong opinions on marriage and this whole topic angers me far more than that of abortion because it interferes with the decision making process of two consenting adults.

(As a side note, you'll notice that I do not use the term "Gay Marriage." I hate that phrase. First, it effectively cuts women from the issue, second, the marriage itself isn't gay...at least not by modern meaning.)

Anyway, there are two main types of marriage in our society: religious marriage and legal marriage. Without a legal marriage license, a religous ceremony means nothing in the eyes of the government, and, conversely, without a religous ceremony, many religions will not recognize a legal marriage. Without going into a long and boring rant, I think it's adequite to say that what constitutes a religoius marriage should have no bearing on what is allowed in a legal marriage. Those who argue against same sex marriages as sanctioned by some governments (including the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada) are, again, essentially forcing their religious belifs about marriage on others. It is one thing for a clergyperson to refuse to perform same sex unions, but it is something entirely different for the government to disallow same sex couples from obtaining secular marriage licenses.

I'm not going to get into the whole issue of "legitimizing" a relationship (whether heterosexual or homosexual) through the government here. Suffice to say, it is very difficult for committed, long term, unmarried couples in the United States, particularly if they have children.

I wonder if there is an argument for emotion versus reason in this case. Many people have immediate, knee-jerk reactions to situation without thinking about the implications of what they are arguing, but hopefully the spirit of equality and reason can prevail...especially in Massachusetts.

Religion and legislation...something I've never quite understood

I've thought about this a lot, particularly in college when I was taking classes about the history of religion in the United States. Let's see if I can articulate myself here.

There are so many situations in which religious values dictate moral and social values. Abortion is the esiest and most obvious example. While I won't deny that there are non-religious people who do not believe that abortion should be legal, the vast majority, it seems, use a religious argument. Those Christians who argue against abortion generally say that it is the equivalent of murder because we are ending the existance of a living thing that is already a human being. The Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception, and many conservative or evangelical denominations agree (although let's not forget that 30% of evangelical Christians are liberal...). Traditionally, Hindusiam and Islam also prohibit abortion is a crime agains nature and a form of murder. In addition, many denominations within Orthodox Judiasm prohibit abortion after 40 days and strongly caution against it before. Of course, most liberal denominations of Judaism acknowledge that there are situations in which abortion is necessary, and many denominations of Christianity agree. I would also be remiss in not mentioning that there are many people who do come to the conclusion that their religious beliefs should not affect legislation that dictates the freedoms of all citizens of the United States, regardless of religion or beliefs.

This is why secular arguments are so important. How is it fair to say: "my Bible states that G-d sees abortion as a crime against His creations, therefore, no one can have an abortion, even if their religious beliefs state differently than mine"? This makes little sense, and, it can be argued, directly violates the First Amendment (I will follow up on this later). There are secular arguments for and agains abortion, and these are more compelling. Acknowledging that all Americans have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is one argument, because life is mentioned as one of our basic rights. But then the argument returns to when a zygote becomes a fetus and when that can be considered human life...or the potential for human life. Unfortunately, many arguments base this on religious beliefs, with one group arguing that life begins at conception, another that it begins at 22 weeks, and still another that life begins at birth. This gets us nowhere. I would argue for using science, which can determine the approximate time when the bran forms the capacity for human pain, emotion, and thought.

Now for the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, if my religion tells me that abortions are acceptable in certain situations and someone was to tell me that I couldn't have one because their religion prohibits abortion, wouldn't that person be forcing her religious beliefs on me and be preventing me from freely exercising my religion? I can see how someone might argue for the reverse, that allowing abortions to remain legal would violate the religious beliefs of those who do not believe in abortion, but this simply isn't true; no one is forced to have an abortion, so this person would not be forced to do something prohibited by her religion. By making abortions illegal, those who believe that abortion is acceptable in some situations would be prohibited from acting in accordance with their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

I do understand that, for those of us who are religious people, many opinions and beliefs are shaped by our religion's dictates and standards. We cannot escape this. What we need to be careful of is forcing those beliefs on others. If you carefully read the Constitution, it does not prohibit us from allowing religious beliefs to affect our secular lives, but rather urges us to also respect the religious beliefs of all Americans.

Islamophobia and what's wrong with out country

"Lawmaker won't apologize for 'Islamophobic' letter"

What is wrong with people? Minnesota was progressive enough to elect a Muslim man to Congress, not that that action should be progressive. Seeing as Muslims consider the Q'ran holy and do not specifically ahdere to the Christian Bible (although there are some overlaps), it seems fair that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison wants to be sworn into office using the book that he considers holy. In my opinion, that shows a more serious commitment to his duties as a Representative.

I don't even understand how this is related to illegal immegration, either. The vast majority of illegal immigrants coming into the United States are Christian, not Muslim. He's just making the typical, right-wing argument that everything supposedly bad is connected by tenuous strings that all tie back to Islam. His argument? All bullshit.

It's men like Rep. Goode here who are the reason other countries hate us, and think we're stupid and bigoted, and he's the reason we're a target for terrorism.

Note: Since I originally wrote this post, I spoke with my mother, who I generally consider more liberal than I am. This is one area where she is not more liberal. I don't think she's Islamophobic, but perhaps she's more practical than I am. Maybe we should acknowledge that a huge portion of those living in the United States are Christian, and many of those people believe that they live in a Christian nation. They may not be so open to "allowing" a Muslim man to swear his oath on anything but their Bible. His request to swear his oath to office on a Q'ran could be interpreted as an attempt to somehow convert America to Islam. I'm not buying it.