Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
While I‘ve been trying to take a break from all politics and news as I bask in the glow of my family staying with me this week, I’ve nonetheless been fascinated by the fall of Egyptian President Morsi, in what must be described as a military coup. I’ve never been a fan of coups as I expect is true of most of us, yet the fall of Morsi has raises issues that I think are far more nuanced than appear on the surface. The salient facts are that after too many years the corruption of the government of Hosni Mubarak (who had been installed by the Egyptian military) led to severe economic issues and dissatisfaction with totalitarian rule. This then led to such massive protest that the military felt compelled, or justified to remove him. Mubarak’s removal was cheered, but then the clamor for free elections arose and after 18 months of martial law elections were held, as the first step towards transitioning to democracy and formulating a constitution.
The Society of Muslim Brothers, or Muslim Brotherhood was:“Founded in Egypt in 1928as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,” It’s stated purposes was to: “to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for …ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood In a country such as Egypt, with its’ long history of totalitarian rule, the concept of political parties was not strong. Through its 85 years history the Brotherhood became the most stable opposition faction in the Egyptian political scene and was the main focus for opposition to whoever ruled Egypt by dint of the Egyptian Military’s backing. Such has been the success of the Muslim Brotherhood that it has branched out to have a significant presence in 20 nations around the world, many without a Muslim majority, such as the Russian Federation, the Indian Subcontinent, Great Britain and the United States. Therefore when the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 took place, the now legal “Brotherhood” was in an excellent position to vie for political power and formed the “Freedom and Justice Party” as its electoral arm. It won more than 40% of the parliamentary seats and its candidate Mohamed Morsi won election as President with 51.73% of the vote. His chief opponent had been a man who served as Mubarak’s Prime Minister. The Egyptian voters were faced, I think, with a “Hobson’s Choice” of Presidential candidates and chose what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils. Sound familiar? What I will attempt to examine here is a question which is framed as: “Are Religious Fundamentalists capable participating in a pluralistic democratic society?”The stated objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood through its’ “Freedom and Justice Party” politically were certainly ones that few of us could complain about and perhaps soothed the secular voters of Egypt and its non-Muslim Egyptians.
“We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people’s will, removing all obstacles restricting the functioning of civil society organizations,etc”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
However, that statement is belied by the following objectives openly acknowledged by the Brotherhood:
“In the group’s belief, the Quran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam’s manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.[21] It preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the laws of Islam. The Brotherhood strongly opposes Western colonialism, and helped overthrow the pro-western monarchies in Egypt and other Muslim countries during the early 20th century.
On the issue of women and gender the Muslim Brotherhood interprets Islam conservatively. Its founder called for “a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior”, “segregation of male and female students”, a separate curriculum for girls, and “the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes … “
“The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for …ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state.”
“The Brotherhood’s credo was and is, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
This is then the dichotomy of beliefs that the Brotherhood’s political party presented to the Egyptian voter. On the one hand it had denounced violence and agreed to work within the framework of a democratic political process. Yet its’ core beliefs are that (at least within predominantly Islamic countries) they should be ruled by the beliefs of Islamic law and justice in accordance with their interpretation of the “Qur’an” which they believe is perfect. Part of the task of the Morsi government was to create and implement a Constitution for Egypt. It was also promised that his government would include all factions of Egyptian society including the large group of Egyptian Coptic Christians. What occurred though was that Morsi only brought in Brotherhood political allies into the various Ministries of government and created a Constitution that was decidedly Islamic in content. Egypt, which was one of the most enlightened countries in the Mid East in the treatment of women, was being pushed into a far more fundamentalist outlook. This decidedly religious obsession of the Morsi government failed to pay attention to improving Egypt’s collapsing economy, growing poverty and the social unrest that goes with those conditions. Rapes of women increased in alarming increments and crime soared as people sought the wherewithal to feed their families. Cairo, that great and venerable city, increased to a population to more than twenty teeming millions the majority living in horrendous slums. City services in Egypt’s capitol collapsed under the weight of those numbers. The elation of the 2011 Revolution led inexorably to the despair of 2013 as millions of Egyptians, many with nothing to lose took to the streets and gave the Egyptian Military the tacit permission to remove Morsi and arrest the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is not my intent to paint the Muslim Brotherhood as evil, nor is it to give a litany of their history of violence and terrorism. Such a view is in my opinion one sided and ignores the reality that led to the Brotherhood’s creation and to its success in surviving for 85 years in a hostile Egyptian climate. Historically, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Mid East has been an area controlled by wealth and Western imperial power. While wealthy rulers lived in luxury, the middle classes were relatively small and the masses lived in abject poverty. No doubt from the perspective of the Brotherhood’s founders they were mandated by their beliefs to aid their brother Muslims and to return them to the “perfection” of Islamic Law. Intermingled with those beliefs was the memory of Islamic empire and the determination to return to its’ glory. However, noble their motives may have been and are, within their beliefs is this inherent problem. If you see that everything you believe is “perfect” and mandated by God, then the idea of compromising those beliefs is blasphemy and sacrilege. How indeed can you live in a pluralistic society, when those who reject your beliefs, are by your definition “evil” and “sinful”?
There are two thoughts that arose in my mind and caused me to write this piece. The first is that the entire concept of “Democracy” has been deconstructed through the years by ours and other governments to mean the ability to vote and little else. How often throughout the world have we seen dictatorships legitimized simply because elections were held? A democratic government needs to be supported by democratic institutions and the agreement of its citizens to abide by the results of the electoral processes. Beyond that it needs an overall conceptual structure that provides the framework for the existence of a government that will protect the rights of all the people, not just the ever changing majority. It requires a legal system and a judiciary that protects its conceptual framework (constitution) and with it the rights of the individual. It’s of course more complicated than that, but if you’re a regular visitor here I’m sure you get my meaning and could on your own flesh it out beyond my brief offering. The point is that when the world saw the welcomed upheaval of the “Arab Spring” it had been conditioned by years of propaganda that made simply holding a vote appear to be the acme of a democratic process. There is much more to developing a democratic society than simply voting for a “leader” and the election of Morsi, given his subsequent actions, did not a democratic Egypt make. This leads me to my second thought on this subject.
I seriously wonder whether it is possible for Fundamentalist religionists to actually be able to take power in a democratic society and wield it in a way that allows people of differing beliefs their freedom to have those differing beliefs? When you have a belief system that you not only see as “perfect”, but as the road-map for a perfect society, how can you make the compromises that are necessary to maintain a pluralistic, democratic society? From the perspective of the Muslim Brotherhood, indeed it is their stated goal; you can only build a “perfect” society based on Islamic law and justice. In this respect they are not really very different from other Fundamentalist true believers that see “their way” as the only way towards true righteousness.
When we apply this to America the abortion debate comes to mind. There is no doubt that the majority of Americans do not believe that women should be denied the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, yet in the years since Roe v. Wade this has been one of the flashpoints of the American political scene. The only conceivable, immutable ending for those anti-abortionists to this national controversy, is the complete end of abortions. Compromise of positions can only be temporary and must include small gains for their side. If and when those opposed to abortion finally gain power they will not hesitate to end it completely, regardless of the equity of the situation and a sizable opposition to their actions. I use abortion though as merely an illustration of this problem. There are many other areas, prayer in schools for instance, where the same dynamic would apply. The problems is that when someone sees their views not only as perfect, but also as the only way to live, compromise becomes ugly and unacceptable.
My contention is that without the ability of people to compromise, maintaining democratic institutions becomes impossible. This is true whether in Cairo, or Washington. The nature of much of today’s religious fundamentalism, be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Judaic, is that compromise is impossible, because one cannot compromise “God’s Word”. If you are a true believer than that is an obvious fact of existence and you would cease to be a “true believer” without that philosophy. This brings me back to Morsi and Egypt. I hate the idea of military coups anywhere, but what was to be done in Egypt. There is strong evidence, that contrary to their platform, once in power those of the Muslim Brotherhood returned to their stated principles and were moving quickly to establish the version of Muslim Law upon Egypt, while at the same time denying equality of treatment to others. This fanaticism in the application of their beliefs distracted them with dealing with the economic and social problems that plagued most Egyptians and led inevitably to the Egyptian Military’s coup. I think this is a quandary that is at the heart of the difficulty of maintaining a democratic, pluralistic system in many countries, including ours. While is certainly is not the only difficulty, it ranks high on a list of contributors to political dysfunction. The question is what to do about it and the answer is quite difficult. The problem is that if you exclude religious fundamentalists from the political process due to their authoritarian views, then you no longer have a pluralistic society because of that exclusion. In a pluralistic society religious fundamentalists should also have a voice, or when do you stop excluding. Please help me out here because while I can frame the problem I admit that I don’t have the “perfect” answers.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I opined neither way on the article Tony posted, AY.
Second it to somebody else.
Gene,
I’ll second what Tony said….. I was very moved by the investigator in the case….. That shows where there is knowledge there can be change…. So are just so narrowly focused they can’t see light for day…..
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/24/abortion-is-legal-but-what-percentage-of-ob-gyns-will-provide-one/
Seems like religion does factor in to denying abortion procedures with Ob/Gyn.
For readers: On the topic of “Perseverance,” here is an excellent article by Adam Grant, professor at Wharton, How to escape from bad decisions.
Perseverance in the face of failure can become what is technically called an “escalation of commitment,” which most people understand as “throwing good money after bad” or “doubling down.” Not all perseverance is escalation, some of it is good: Such as staying the course through college despite the temptations to leave it. That said, this article is a very good tutorial on how to avoid time traps, money pits, and lost opportunity by pursuing dead ends. It is a combination of personal decision making management and, in business, its physical and psychological counterpart in sticking to decision making protocol.
An excerpt starting in the middle of the article: “New evidence reveals that the biggest culprit behind escalation is ego threat. We don’t want to be seen — or see ourselves — as failures. If you just invest a bit more in that underperforming employee, you can save face and protect your ego, convincing your colleagues (and yourself) that you were right all along. Staw and colleagues found that in NBA basketball, after controlling for players’ performance on the court, those who were picked earlier in the draft were given more playing time and were less likely to be traded. Regardless of players’ offensive and defensive success on the court, when executives made bigger bets on players, they had a harder time giving up on them, as that would mean conceding a blunder. So what we can do about it?
Rigorous studies support four antidotes to escalation:”
******** END EXCERPT ********
Then the article has four useful prescriptions to make our lives better.
Tony,
You’re welcome. I’ve even purged my collection of his works. I try to judge artists by their art alone, but sometimes, you’ve just got to make an exception.
Gene: Wow, I did not know Orson Scott Card was so hateful. Thanks for the tip.
I approved one of them. I suspect Askimet didn’t like the search term in the NYT link.
Leejcaroll
For some reason one of them ended up in the spam filter. I don’t know why either.
Thanks Darren,
I see my role as a guest blogger as writing something of general interest to this community, that will spur a lively discussion and disclose further items of knowledge and interest to us all. It is hard to separate any bloggers personal beliefs from the objectivity with which they treat their subject, or else why would they choose to write about it? This is the blog of a distinguished advocate of the rule of law. In the long shadow that our proprietor casts, in my small way I also advocate for what i believe is true, though few much less myself would ever confuse me with being distinguish.
With that in mind I used Morsi’s removal as the backdrop for what I considered was a more important topic, which was the compatibilty, or lack of same, of democracy with fundamentalist religion. My view is that fundamentalist religion is incompatible with democracy, yet one can’t have a democracy that excludes segments of the people for their beliefs. This sets up a difficult dichotomy, which I think our Founders understood and responded with a republican form of government, rather than a democracy. I’m uncertain that they achieved a viable solution, given the state of the nation today. I apologize though for not broadening my meaning of fundamentalism to include more than religion alone. Indeed I’ve known communists that shared the compatible traits of religious zealotry, without God in their equation. The religious fundamentalist and the communist and the fascist share quite similar attitudes. Their belief system MUST ultimately triumph and be imposed on all, or they will never accept their society as legitimate. You can’t “defeat” them since they will not accept your legitimacy if, like in overturning DOMA, you do.
This thread has been a long and well fought one, with civilty reining on all sides. One might think that in discussing the right of Homosexuals to marry, the thread has strayed far from its roots in Egyptian politics, but as the author I would put to rest this idea. Gay marriage is a perfect metaphor for what I was alluding to. The Fundamentalist religious right will never give up on discriminating against Gay people, since to them homosexuality is an abomination. What may happen though, as illustrated by Orson Scott Card is that a diminished economic possibilty will put many into a strategic retreat. For those of us committed to an open, pluralistic society, we must never smugly rest on the conviction of our victories. I’ve lived long enough to see how the victories of an earlier era have become retreats in ours. I’m speaking specifically of a woman’s riight to make decisions about her own body.
DavidM, in particular has advocated his beliefs with civility and in an articulate manner. I must commend you David, even though I assert that your arguments typified the problem I was trying to address. This was shown in your dismissing the Wyoming murder as a mere robbery, when the evidence overwhelmingly belies this viewpoint. Your calling Physicians “abortionists” and claiming that most Doctors are anti-choice again shows a rigid viewpoint informed solely from your religious belief, with its main bolstering basis being a narrow interpretation of the life of Jesus of Nazerath, seen through the eyes of a Roman citizen who never met him and The Council of Nicea, controlled by a pagan Emperor.
The common assertion of those here rejecting your argument is not about what you personally believe, but in your willingness to impose your beliefs on those who reject some aspects of them. In your frame the argument is between Christians and atheists, but since I am neither and disagree with you as well that frame doesn’t work. In any event David I welcome your advocacy because it has made my point, but nevertheless your civility and erudition have made for enjoyable reading.
Mike, I appreciate you taking time to make your post. I feel like the odd man out here and get frustrated sometimes with people not understanding me, especially when they respond in ways that misrepresent my viewpoint. While you also seem to misunderstand me, at least you peppered your comment with some kind words that showed you recognized some value in my taking time to post my contrarian viewpoint.
Mike Spindell wrote: “The Fundamentalist religious right will never give up on discriminating against Gay people, since to them homosexuality is an abomination.”
And this really goes to the heart of the matter, that it is not the general principle of religious fundamentalism that creates the problem. The problem is when a person adopts an intractable paradigm of thought from which he has decided he will never budge no matter what evidence or reasons are given. This ideological mode of thinking, often based upon a dogma or creed, creates a difficulty for that person to harmonize in a society where some individuals do not adopt that paradigm.
Mike Spindell wrote: ” I apologize though for not broadening my meaning of fundamentalism to include more than religion alone.”
Exactly. As another example, Tony has readily claimed that there is nothing that could ever convince him to relinquish his atheistic paradigm. This intractable position also creates difficulties for democracy and pluralism in that there are a lot of theists in society. His recent over-the-top tirade in response to one of my posts is illustrative of the problem. We could easily find a theist who would might likewise adopt an intractable position from a theistic mindset. So clearly the problem is not religious fundamentalism. We have to look at the situation of a person adopting a paradigm or worldview from which that person will never bend, whether that position is created from reading a religious text, a political book, from his own logical analysis, or even just a position based upon the apparent lack of empirical evidence to prove otherwise.
Mike Spindell wrote: “… I assert that your arguments typified the problem. I was trying to address. This was shown in your dismissing the Wyoming murder as a mere robbery, when the evidence overwhelmingly belies this viewpoint.”
People interpret evidence different ways. Maybe it is your intractable position about Shepard that is the problem? My position is not rigid, open to change and open to discussion, but you dismiss my current conclusion without any interest in discussing my reasons. Apparently you assume that I have none. Why? Why assume that I do not have any evidence upon which I base my perspective? Why not instead have the humble attitude of, “why do you think the murder of Shepard was more motivated by drugs and robbery than hatred for gays?”
I think there is sufficient evidence, much of it never presented in court, that suggests this was another media driven event like the recent Zimmerman case. Numerous people, including the prosecutor, McKinney himself, McKinney’s girlfriend, the police detective investigating the case, and many others identify methamphetamine drug use and money as more important factors involved. Another witness says he never heard McKinney make any anti-gay remarks before, and he claims the murderer McKinney was bisexual himself, having engaged in a three way with him. The fact is that Aaron and McKinney, after beating Shepard, went out to rob Shepard’s home and also to rob other people. They got into another bloody fight with two other people who were not gay. This happened that very same night they beat up Matthew Shepard, and it was the reason they got caught in the first place. One of the men they attacked had a fractured skull, and it took hitting McKinney with a bat to prevent their own murder. The evidence creates sufficient doubt that I think anyone continuing to use Shepard as a poster boy of gay hatred is all about the propaganda machine of indoctrinating others toward their viewpoint. This is not to say that I don’t think there is gay hatred out there. I readily acknowledge that there are people who attack gays simply for being gay. I deplore those individuals. I just don’t think Matthew Shepard was such a case, and I think the number of cases is a bit overblown by the liberal agenda.
Interestingly, I attempted to provide the LGBT Affairs department at the University of Florida with some of this information in published form in an effort to balance information and present a more objective education about LGBT affairs. As I handed it to the director, she refused to take it. I asked her to just read it and consider whether it is worthy to put in their reading room. She refused because its content was not supportive of their agenda. Do you think this is a proper way of providing education? With this kind of non-liberal approach to education by the liberals who are now in power and authority, I think proper education is deficient.
You can read more specifics about the Shepard murder here:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1#.Ud660Tvvii1
Mike Spindell wrote: “Your calling Physicians “abortionists” and claiming that most Doctors are anti-choice again shows a rigid viewpoint informed solely from your religious belief…”
I am really amazed of the objections that you and Darren express about the word “abortionist.” A medical doctor who terminates pregnancies is called an abortionist. From my perspective, this is no different than calling a heart surgeon a cardiologist or an eye doctor an ophthalmologist. I certainly did not use the term in any kind of malicious way. Please suggest another concise term that properly identifies his specialty if that term abortionist offends you. I think the term abortionist is a useful term in dialogue, but perhaps I need a little sensitivity education about this.
It is difficult for me to understand how you would stereotype me as being rigid in some religious belief just because I use the term abortionist and because I mentioned what I thought was a readily known fact, that most doctors do not perform abortions. It is difficult for me to see the rigid religious conviction on my part for these two simple “offenses” on my part.
Mike Spindell wrote: “… with its main bolstering basis being a narrow interpretation of the life of Jesus of Nazerath, seen through the eyes of a Roman citizen who never met him and The Council of Nicea, controlled by a pagan Emperor.”
Excuse me, but I do not limit myself to the information you apparently assume that I do. In my eyes, Jesus and his followers were Jews. The tension between Jews who followed Jesus and those who did not resulted later in Christianity breaking away from Judaism as a separate religious system of thought, but in regards to studying that man Jesus of Nazareth, he is in my eyes Jewish. Do not assume that I am fooled by all the propaganda that went on afterward just because I identified Jesus as an important figure in history whose philosophy on life I have come to accept and embrace.
Mike Spindell wrote: “The common assertion of those here rejecting your argument is not about what you personally believe, but in your willingness to impose your beliefs on those who reject some aspects of them.”
I see my position as somewhat compromising between the two positions, and based upon legal precedent. The only aspect lost to those wanting their same sex union to be called marriage is the apparent “status symbol” of calling it marriage. If it were not for the long standing history of opposite sex unions being called marriage, I would suggest using the term “marriage” for same sex unions and inventing another term for opposite sex unions. Tradition and history makes that kind of solution untenable. In any case, while your perspective is that I am imposing my viewpoint upon others, my perspective is that gay marriage supporters are imposing their viewpoint upon others. Their refusal to treat same sex unions differently from opposite sex unions is seemingly just as intractable as an anti-abortionist refusing to treat the unborn differently from people already born.
Mike Spindell wrote: “In your frame the argument is between Christians and atheists, but since I am neither and disagree with you as well that frame doesn’t work.”
I have never framed the argument as being between Christians and atheists. I have been quoting legal texts like Loving, Skinner, Maynard, etc. and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The bigotry in this forum is so entrenched in the idea that only the religious disagree with them that it does not matter what form of argument I make, it is forever a religious argument in their eyes.
I acknowledged my theistic paradigm and I acknowledged that it provides a bias for the way I arrange and interpret data in my mind. Someone asked why I considered myself not religious when I profess theism and an ideology that is aligned with many Christian views. I explained, which then led to someone wondering about my disdain for the philosophy of atheism. It was only then that I expounded upon my perspective of atheism, much to my regret.
From my purview, religious theology does not have a place in civil law making, which is why I have based all my arguments upon arguments made by Supreme Court Justices and other legal professionals. The fact that nobody engages these arguments directly but prefers to stereotype me as religious and bigoted and full of hatred for gays, etc. speaks to the prejudice of those who disagree with me. It is a well known fact, that when logic fails, ad hominem attacks usually prevail.
David,
More then one person posted clicks to studies about why there are less doctors performing abortion services.
You make the 1 -1 connection: “A medical doctor who terminates pregnancies is called an abortionist. From my perspective, this is no different than calling a heart surgeon a cardiologist or an eye doctor an ophthalmologist.
A heart surgeon is not a cardiologist, he is a cardiac surgeon, a surgeon who specializes in cardiac cases.
An ophthalmologist specializes in all sorts of eye diseases, for instance if a doc specializes in cornea he will be called a cornea specialist but he is an ophthalmologist who specializes. (And is not called a corneaologist)
No doctor specializes in abortion services, which would then, by your definition, make him an abortionist. They are usually doctors specializing in women’s health, i.e. a gynecologist.
There is no specialty. It is not a matter of sensitivity.
(Odd only used 2 click cites but not taking my comment)
(I submitted this but it did not show so not sure if it went through or not, apologize if it posts 2x)
Porkchop you got there before me
David, Your twisting of facts to make it fit your personal theory and bias is evident in your representation of what you call the reality behind the Matthew Shepard killing. I wonder if despite being repeatedly shown you are wring you will back off of your allegation.
As for most medical doctors refusing to perform abortions, y ou are wring there too. Don’t know if you just made that up or found some specious site that told you this “fact” but here is the reality:
In recent years, anti-choice activity has focused on targeting individual physicians and clinic staff in intense campaigns of intimidation. A “Wanted” poster with a photograph and clinic schedule of Dr. David Gunn was circulated in the months prior to his murder by an anti-choice protestor in March, 1993. Four months later, an anti-choice organization in Chester County, Pennsylvania, distributed posters and postcards, captioned “Not Wanted” and “Abortion, Inc,” bearing the names, photographs, addresses and phone numbers of two physicians who work at a local women’s clinic.
The intimidation of physicians begins before they are even practicing medicine. In the spring of 1993, 33,000 medical students received a comic book in the mail from an anti-choice organization called Life Dynamics. Titled “Bottom Feeder,” it contained dozens of “jokes” about abortion providers, many violent in nature:
Q: What would you do if you found yourself in a room with Hitler, Mussolini and an abortionist, and you had a gun with only two bullets?
A: Shoot the abortionist twice.
Medical students who have advocated for increased abortion training at their institutions have also been picketed at their homes, and student organizers must be concerned with protecting the identities of fellow activists, further adding to the atmosphere of danger and intimidation.
http://www.aclupa.org/education/clarabellduvallreproductiv/duvallprojectresourcespubl/shortageofphysicians.htm
That is from the ACLU so may not be an acceptable source for you so here is another:
…”In 1973, hospitals made up 80 percent of the country’s abortion facilities. By 1981, however, clinics outnumbered hospitals, and 15 years later, 90 percent of the abortions in the U.S. were performed at clinics. The American Medical Association did not maintain standards of care for the procedure. Hospitals didn’t shelter them in their wings. Being a pro-choice doctor came to mean referring your patients to a clinic rather than doing abortions in your own office. ” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Wow, I leave here for a couple of days . . .
davidm2575:
“As for the abortionist term, most medical doctors refuse to do abortions because they believe it is contrary to the oath they take in their medical profession.”
I know I’m going to regret getting involved in this conversation again, but if you have access to some kind of poll results to support your assertion, it would be interesting to hear about that.
I would suggest that the reason that the vast majority of medical doctors don’t (or “refuse to”) perform abortions might be related to the fact that they are not obstetricians/gynecologists. I don’t think there are very many rheumatologists or neurosurgeons who would be interested in a side practice at an abortion clinic, regardless of their views on the subject of abortion. Of course, I have no data, so this is simply speculation on my part. I do know, though, that I would not want to send my daughter to my orthopedic surgeon to terminate a pregnancy.
Among OB/GYN’s, some oppose abortion, some don’t. Some who don’t oppose abortion don’t do them anyway. Perhaps for some them it has to do with a fear of assassination by radical “pro-lifers”; perhaps for some of them, it has to do with state legislatures substituting uneducated religious fanaticism for medical judgment and making it impractical or nearly impossible to perform abortions.
But I don’t know that, so, again, if you have some data, let’s see it
Porkchop wrote: “I would suggest that the reason that the vast majority of medical doctors don’t (or “refuse to”) perform abortions might be related to the fact that they are not obstetricians/gynecologists.”
I spoke based upon common knowledge that I have had for years. I don’t have a lot of time right now to research it, but a quick google of some search terms brought up a survey from 2011 that only 14% of ob/gyn’s perform abortions.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/24/only-1-in-7-obgyns-now-perform-abortions-survey-finds
The original hippocratic oath forbid doctors from performing abortions, and so in more modern times, that oath has been modified to allow for abortion. I think I read somewhere that only 3 medical schools still use the original oath. Still, many medical doctors have conscientious objections, especially performing them after the first trimester. It is a serious ethics question. Following is a link to an interesting article that addresses this problem in California:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/22/2/115.full.pdf
As for fear of assassination that you mentioned, certainly that reason also must be considered as a factor that affects some medical doctors. I’ve read some polls in the past taken at medical conventions where doctors mention conscience as the primary reason for their decision not to do them, but I don’t have time to research that right now so I can’t offer you the data at this time.
No David. Matthew was selected and murdered because he was gay. How many $30 robberies have you heard of where the victim was beaten so badly blood spatters were found fifty feet away? Tortured, tied up with barbed wire, hung from a fence and left to die? The first claimed defense was they did it because of “gay panic.” They were not charged with a hate crime because at the time, neither Wyoming or the Feds had a hate crime statute. Wyoming still doesn’t.
Albany County, Wyo., Sheriff David O’Malley was a Laramie detective when he was assigned to investigate the murder. O’Malley said that before the Shepard case he was very homophobic. During the time he spent working on Matthew Shepard’s murder, he worked and got to know people in the gay community. Those experiences were life-changing for O’Malley. His attitude not only changed, he is now an outspoken advocate for civil rights for the LGBT community.
Davidm, you are full of it. If you truly believe all that stuff you are spewing, I have a great bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap.
“What other term would you suggest?”
Oh how about “Doctor”? Maybe it might be a little more humanizing than what those who advocate the murder of certain health care professionals choose to use.
As for the anti-religious claim you just said that your ideology was in alignment with general christian religion. I would supose that would include a blief in God and some of the teachings in the Bible, but how is that being anti-religious? It isn’t necessary to be a card carrying member of the westboro baptist church to subscribe and adhere to the same teachings they espouse. Aldrich Ames did not have to be a card carrying communist to be convicted of espionage.
ANd about Matthew Shepard, he wasn’t murdered because he was gay? Well then, why did Aaron McKinney, one of his murderers, at first claim “gay panic defense” as one of the reasons for his actions? The only reason those two were not charged with a state level hate crime was because the Wyoming Criminal Code at the time did not codify it.
Darren, the term “Doctor” is not specific enough, and it seems biased to me in that most people usually think of a doctor as providing health and life, not terminating a life. The term abortionist seems more specific and neutral to me.
In regards to my being anti-religious, it is because I have very little respect for most of what I see as passing for organized religion. It just seems to me very fake and more about persuading people to give money toward someone building their own personal empire in the name of God rather than actually being motivated by spirituality. Some are good social clubs, but they operate under the pretense of being “under God.” They tell everyone to read the Bible, but those that actually do read it and follow some of its instruction in their personal life soon find that the ones telling them to read it don’t actually live by it. So I have concluded that religious sects are more man-made than God-made and are somewhat phony because of the pretenses under which they operate. My aversion to dishonesty makes me anti-religious.
In regards to Aaron McKinney, it is my understanding that his lawyers wanted to argue that McKinney was sexually abused by a gay man at the age of 7, and then later at age 15 he had another homosexual experience, so when Shepard made sexual advances, he was put into a panic that he was gay and wanting to deny his own homosexual feelings he went into a rage. It basically was a legal maneuvering to claim temporary insanity. The Judge did not allow it. After conviction, McKinney said it never had anything to do with Shepard being gay. The evidence points to Meth Rage and robbery to support his drug habit as the overriding motivations.
Darren, my last post to you got trapped by WordPress. Maybe somebody will free it. 🙂
Thanks Darren.
Tony:
I pulled your post out of the spam filter, it got put there for some reason. You should see it above.
Gene, can you check if my post is stuck (15 min ago).
David proclaimed:
I do not profess any religion
~+~
I would disagree. You have professed with consistency fundamentalist Christian idealology as practiced by many groups in the United States. I don’t understand how this could be not interpreted as being professing any religion. Just because you feel you haven’t named a particular sect in your advocacy doesn’t mean you are refraining from professing of a particular religion.
You also make use of words and phrases that are consistent with what is used by fundamentalist, western Christians such as “abortionist” et al. That is terminology that is so frequently used by some rather extremists in that subculture I find it rather unbelievable that someone trying to maintain a distance from those groups would even risk using such words.
Darren Smith wrote: “You have professed with consistency fundamentalist Christian idealology as practiced by many groups in the United States. I don’t understand how this could be not interpreted as being professing any religion.”
I agree that my ideology is aligned with general Christian theology, but I do not embrace any particular Christian sect. You might even consider me anti-religious. For someone to be religious, they would have to join themselves to a religious sect, attend meetings with members of that sect, and perhaps profess a belief in some Creed or Statement of Faith. None of those things apply to me. I’m sorry that I don’t fit into the nice stereotypes others like to cast other people into.
As for the abortionist term, most medical doctors refuse to do abortions because they believe it is contrary to the oath they take in their medical profession. I think the term abortionist is most accurate. What other term would you suggest?
Porkchop you got there before me ((*_*))
David Thou shalt not bear false witness even when you want it to bolster a false position such as about Matthew Shepard’s murder.
As for doctors not willing to provide abortions: http://www.aclupa.org/education/clarabellduvallreproductiv/duvallprojectresourcespubl/shortageofphysicians.htm
“In recent years, anti-choice activity has focused on targeting individual physicians and clinic staff in intense campaigns of intimidation. A “Wanted” poster with a photograph and clinic schedule of Dr. David Gunn was circulated in the months prior to his murder by an anti-choice protestor in March, 1993. Four months later, an anti-choice organization in Chester County, Pennsylvania, distributed posters and postcards, captioned “Not Wanted” and “Abortion, Inc,” bearing the names, photographs, addresses and phone numbers of two physicians who work at a local women’s clinic.
The intimidation of physicians begins before they are even practicing medicine. In the spring of 1993, 33,000 medical students received a comic book in the mail from an anti-choice organization called Life Dynamics. Titled “Bottom Feeder,” it contained dozens of “jokes” about abortion providers, many violent in nature:
Q: What would you do if you found yourself in a room with Hitler, Mussolini and an abortionist, and you had a gun with only two bullets?
A: Shoot the abortionist twice.
Medical students who have advocated for increased abortion training at their institutions have also been picketed at their homes, and student organizers must be concerned with protecting the identities of fellow activists, further adding to the atmosphere of danger and intimidation.
since that is from an ACLU paper you probably won’t accept it so here is another source:
…”In 1973, hospitals made up 80 percent of the country’s abortion facilities. By 1981, however, clinics outnumbered hospitals, and 15 years later, 90 percent of the abortions in the U.S. were performed at clinics. The American Medical Association did not maintain standards of care for the procedure. Hospitals didn’t shelter them in their wings. Being a pro-choice doctor came to mean referring your patients to a clinic rather than doing abortions in your own office. ” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
DavidM: Especially among intelligent people, they construct moral boundaries based upon their own rules of conduct which they judge make them best able to function well in society.
Bullcrap. As an intelligent person and an atheist, I know full well I could be wealthy if I were selfish, ruthless, and ripped off gullible people while staying within the boundaries of US law, which I think clearly does not protect people from predations of such people.
But I do not, my moral code is based upon fair treatment of others. I do not need imaginary threats to keep me in line, and I do not take advantage of others because they are gullible or uninformed or misinformed or desperate, which are all employed in quite legal ways to take people’s money without delivering them any benefit in return, or only imaginary benefits.
My moral code is not devised for my convenience. It has cost me many a day helping somebody that needed it, and over six figures preventing injustices from being done. But that is because I do NOT believe in supernatural intervention or justice, I believe that if something is to be done it must be done by us. YOUR moral code is mighty convenient, because it lets you leave the problem to God, or assume whatever happens to somebody else must be part of God’s plan, it lets you address real problems with “prayer” and feel like you have done something when in fact you might as well be saying, “Good luck, sucker.”
1) What purpose would prayer serve for an atheist?
None whatsoever, and what makes you think prayer is good in itself? It is a waste of time and energy that could have been contributed to solving a problem, instead it is you talking in your head to make yourself feel better about having “done something” when in fact you did nothing. Prayer is a lie to yourself.
2) What purpose would a practice like fasting serve an atheist?
There are reasons to fast for health; fasting is NOT detrimental to the body, the vast majority of Americans would do well to fast two days a week.
Or do as I do, and eat half as many calories, four days a week (for me, Monday through Thursday).
Fasting accomplishes several important functions. Primary among them is weight control, particularly needed for a sedentary lifestyle; excess fat causes disease and shortens life, period.
Guess what? Atheists believe we have only one life, and it is enjoyable, and we want to prolong it as long as we can. Fasting can help us do that.
Regular fasting and reduced calorie diets have also been shown to reduce the prevalence of cancers, diabetes, atherosclerosis, liver and kidney disease and other diseases.
3) What about oaths, promises, and covenants?
What about signed contracts? I need no supernatural threat to keep oaths and promises I make, and con men routinely prey upon those that believe verbal oaths and promises accompanied by “I swear to God.”
You seem to think atheists have NO conscience or sense of right and wrong and the only thing that makes you moral is supernatural threats of punishment.
[An atheist] may be wise to cheat if you are sure you will not get caught, it would be wise to squirm around agreements through loopholes and the like.
You have an appalling sense of what is wise. I don’t cheat because it is unfair, and I do not want to think of myself as a cheat and a fraud. If I make an agreement I do my best to keep it because my purpose in life is to contribute to the happiness and well-being of other people, not phuck them over.
Theists, on the other hand, can commit any sin and then ask their imaginary friend for forgiveness which is automatically granted. That sounds like the biggest loophole of all, they do not have to care about the lies, frauds, and crimes they have committed against others, because they have constrained their God to forgive them no matter what.
I do not forgive myself my transgressions, they are mine to carry with me for life as lessons in what not to be, they are mine to correct as I can.
…but at least we have a foundation by which to rebuke such action. For the atheist, there is no foundation because ultimately what is best is what leads him to have a better life for himself and those associated with him.
More bullcrap. You mistakenly believe atheism equates with selfishness, perhaps because you yourself are so pervasively selfish you cannot imagine anybody else caring about other people without the command and threats of a God to do so.
4) What about being persecuted for righteous causes? … an atheist has no reason to lay down his life sacrificially for a good cause.
On the contrary, an atheist believes his life is finite anyway, he will die and cease to exist and in all likelihood be completely forgotten in time.
For certain causes, the atheist may well decide that the finite life left to him is worth sacrificing, if he believes his death can be leveraged to create or preserve human happiness. He does not need the false promise of watching the outcome from on high to believe he is doing the right thing.
That doesn’t have to be an end of life decision; risking death to save others or as part of a team to make something come to pass is a fine way to spend one’s allowance.
Atheists understand life and death.
If the cause is right and her death would make a difference, then biology may make the atheist feel the fear death, but rationality can balance that fear with bravery and drive her to prevent catastrophe and make the world a better place. Life is finite and death is inevitable, it will come sooner or later, but some changes have wide reaching effects that are worth letting it come early.
And in some cases, death now is better than living with the alternative (and eventually dying anyway). I would die in place of my wife or child, if given the choice, because I could not stand the self-hatred that would ensue if I were a coward and chose my life over theirs.
From an atheist’s perspective, the way Jesus led his life, marching headlong into being executed at the age of 33, would just be absolutely foolish and stupid.
Putting aside that Jesus is a fictional character cribbed from 25 other “saviour” stories (all born on December 25th, all crucified) already extant for hundreds of years before his ‘birth’ (or invention), Dying to create something worth more than one’s finite life is well within the atheist’s wheelhouse. Second, Jesus did not die: He suffered some torture, but lived again. The same goes for any Theist that believes in an afterlife, if you don’t believe that death is the end, you have no reason to withhold your death. Only an Atheist can truly know he sacrifices EVERYTHING by dying for a cause.
5) Atheism discourages any person from becoming spiritual in how they relate to others and to society in general.
Again, you assume “spiritual” is an automatic good, and it isn’t. You engage in circular reasoning again; you claim “spiritual” is automatically a good, and since atheists aren’t “spiritual,” atheism is automatically bad.
There is nothing good about being “spiritual.” It is embracing a falsehood and a false view of reality that leads you to do harm to others. Just ask the homosexuals to whom you deny marriage because you are “spiritual.”
6) Atheism discourages the virtue of pure love and replaces it with hedonism as a valid consideration for achieving happiness.
No it doesn’t. Atheists feel the same love, caring, and joy in another that Theists feel, without attributing those feelings to any third party. It seems to me attributing my love for others to a third party diminishes me.
Further, hedonism is not always a negative and asceticism is not always a positive; there is nothing sinful about creature comforts and pleasures that do not harm others, demean others, or break promises to others. Nobody is here but other people, if they are not harmed then they have no right to complain.
Evolutionary theory rightly predicts selfish behavior to come through the carnal, physical impulses of our bodies.
That is a lie, I know a great deal about evolutionary theory and that is just patently untrue.
Whereas the theist is led to distinguish Godly love from erotic love, the atheist conflates them all together, believing that carnal love is all there is.
False again. Atheists believe in many forms of love. I feel parental love, romantic love with my spouse, brotherly love with my friends, love for my parents and siblings, and a general love for humanity. All of those are different ways of treasuring others; I would even say I love my work, I love a few of my co-workers and colleagues; I would be saddened to tears by their loss. The only one of those that is carnal is romantic love, and IMO that is a thin slice of romantic love and not critical to the equation. If my wife became incapable, I would still be in love with her.
Atheists love exactly as theists do, we just do not mistakenly attribute our feelings to a supernatural entity.
7) Atheism destroys the value of faith in guiding a person’s life. If there is no God and no spirit, faith is rendered useless. Faith becomes ineffective then as a guide to knowledge. Faith also becomes ineffective as a cultivated virtue that allows a person to persevere calmly and peacefully through trials and hardships.
Ha! Well, hopefully that is true, since faith is belief without reason, and that is often a formula for disaster. Belief without reason is not a guide to knowledge, it is a route to delusion. Faith is not a virtue, any more than stupidity is a virtue.
As for persevering, an atheist is in the best position to assess whether that is worth doing or not worth doing, because an atheist, knowing that the world is NOT explained by the claptrap offered by theists, strives to understand the world as it really is, which gives them the best perspective on reality and whether perseverance is worth the effort and sacrifice it will take, or whether it is smarter to surrender or find an alternative route. The atheist is not saddled with mythology that doesn’t work and doesn’t waste their time praying for relief to nonexistent deities when they could be working to solve a problem.
No longer does another person’s experience or honest testimony mean much of anything. Only empirical proof matters to them.
I do not need empirical proof, but I do need empirical evidence and a plausible explanation of claims.
Why should I trust your experience over my own?
Why should I believe somebody else’s testimony when it is full of contradictions, logical error and physical impossibilities?
Faith is a fool’s tool, it is belief because somebody else says so, it is an abdication of the responsibility to think for one’s self and do the work of understanding the world and people on your own.
…but rarely if ever do they point to atheistic saints so-to-speak.
Perhaps because atheistic saints do less to promote themselves and trumpet their work to the world as God’s work.
Perhaps because the atheists that ARE doing good works aren’t doing it in the name of atheism, but doing it in the name of humanity.
Perhaps because charitable atheists are smart and know that with 95% (or more) of the world in the grip of various supernatural delusions, proudly proclaiming their atheism would do more harm to their cause than good, and being smart they know their charitable mission is more important than their personal ego and thus they refrain from such public proclamations that would gain them fame at the expense of the good works they are trying to accomplish.
If you want a few, Brad Pitt (atheist) has spent $16 million dollars of his own money (as a charity he personally oversees) rebuilding housing for the poor in New Orleans. With Angelina Jolie (another atheist) they have spent another several million dollars of their own money on Doctors Without Borders, world hunger programs, and sanctuaries for refugees in war torn countries. Not to mention adopting three children.
Morgan Freeman (atheist) has donated major financial support to more than 15 charities.
Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world in 2008, told a reporter that asked, “I do not believe in any unseen divinity,” and has donated $41 billion dollars to charity, via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (also atheists), that have donated over $28 billion dollars to charity.
George Soros (atheist) has donated $7 billion dollars to promote “open and democratic societies.”
Andrew Carnegie (atheist) was one of America’s leading philanthropists.
On Kiva.org, a micro-financing organization, one can join a “lending team” to pool donations as a group effort. The lending team that has done the most on Kiva.org (and nearly twice as much as the second place team) is “Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists, and the Non-Religious.” Their motto is: “We loan because we care about the suffering of human beings.”
Perhaps you do not understand atheists at all.
Davidm,
We have been watching your verbal gymnastics and contradictory logical leaps for weeks now. No professed religion? Who exactly do you think you are fooling? All your homophobic arguments have been based on religion, not law. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that any law can be changed for any reason lawmakers deem necessary. You refer to a “homosexual agenda” as though it is some communist plot. Having known a number of homosexuals, I can tell you their main agenda is to be treated like everyone else. No better and no worse. I think most of them would also prefer not to be murdered:
http://www.thepoisonforest.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/matthew.jpg
Mr. Scribe – Surely you are not one of those people who think Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay? No wonder you can’t even read the plain language of case law and prefer to live in denial. The motive in Shepard’s case was robbery. Clearly facts do not matter to you.
‘Tolerate’ Your Homophobia, Orson Scott Card? Um, No