February 16, 2012

My heart - My body

Gay marriage and abortion are two other (amongst many) topics that prevent some humans from practicing their freedom to live their personal lives as they please. This can be disguised as politics, but in reality these rejections of acceptance stem from religion, rules of an ancient book. 
 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
When it comes to the subject of abortion, though there aren’t any“rules” in the bible that forbids abortion, most religious people (especially Christians) claim that it is forbidden by god.

My heart

Who can interfere and appose two humans loving each other and asking to be recognized by law but a religion movement. Who can put up a fight in order to prevent and deny two humans from openly loving? religion organizations and believers of course.
To me it seems like we don’t learn from history. Are anti-gay marriage amendments the spiritual successors to miscegenation laws?
During the Civil Rights era, many American whites opposed miscegenation (i.e., mixing of racial groups through cohabitation, marriage, sexual relations, etc.). In fact, anti-miscegenation laws were common in many states until 1967. Today, such laws are widely acknowledged as mistaken examples of shameful bigotry. And yet, while watching African Americans protesting the Washington DC Council's recent legalization of gay marriage, I realized that precious little was learned from the Civil Rights era.

In 1967, the year of the landmark Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, interracial marriages were illegal in 16 states. The case involved an interracial couple from Virginia (where interracial marriage was illegal) who traveled to Washington DC to be married. Upon their return to Virginia, they were arrested and informed that their marriage license was not valid in Virginia.

What was the big deal over interracial relations? Why were two consenting adults being arrested simply for loving each other? The judge who heard Loving had the following to say:
"Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Sound familiar? It should. Much of the rationale used for anti-miscegenation laws mirrors that currently used to justify opposition to gay marriage. Much of the religious gibberish uttered by those bigots is now used by modern anti-gay bigots.

Those who opposed miscegenation were convinced that race mixing was an abomination in the eyes of their god. We hear the same argument today, only this time it is directed at gay marriage.

It is bad enough when the privileged white power structure engages in such stupidity. To see African Americans do it, when they themselves were so recently victims of this sort of hate, is infuriating. Is this really what was gained from the Civil Rights movement: African Americans can now join whites in spewing hate and bigotry at another group? I sure as hell hope not.

Oh, and if you think gay parenthood is a bad idea, watch this.

My body

The female body (or any body for that matter) is not public property and should not have laws upon it by religious organizations or government. A womans body is her body and her choice if she wants an abortion or not.
Why birth control and/or abortion is needed ?
The 1960/61 Pears Cyclopaedia, page C33, said that the 1960 world population was 2.5 billion and predicted then that in 25 years time (1985) it would be 4 billion. In fact, the world reached a population of 4 billion in 1974. The world's population is now 6 billion. By the year 1804 humanity had attained a population of a billion, a number that has been added to the world's population since July 1987! (October 1999=6 billion.)
Pears said that in 600 years time, at the present rate of population increase, there would be only one square meter available for each person on Earth to live on. Something has to give, since religion oppose contraception: Their population policy will, logically, result in the destruction of life on this planet.
Also religion organizations claim to be pro life and “life loving,” when their ancient text books are riddled with text that shows no appreciation and respect for life.
The bible cannot be accepted as a source of ethics by a humane and secular government.
The bible is replete with examples of what are, by modern secular standards, barbaric moral precepts.

Example 1: If a man rapes an unbetrothed (female) virgin then the punishment is to force the man to marry the woman with no right of divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). (i.e. the woman is punished!)
Example  2: (Exodus 22:29). Firstborn children should be sacrificed to the Lord.
Example  3: (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21). A child who curses his or her parents is to be put to death. A stubborn and/or rebellious child is to be put to death.

Bottom line: religious people keep telling us atheists not to try and force our atheism onto the public, all while religion is constantly trying to force ancient rules into law and say it is about morals. In my opinion, morals are letting others live the way they want, love whom ever they want and get an abortion if they want. As long as people are good people and don’t harm others they shouldn’t be forced to religion’s ancient rules and belifes.
Religious sources include the laws of ancient tribes, and the stories told by ancient tribal peoples as myth and folklore. Such non-factual information, without rationally arrived at precepts, based upon mythological beings, and having relevance to the societies of ancient tribal peoples, cannot be the foundation for modern secular laws legislated by and for a humane society. If people wish to follow such precepts they are free to do so, providing that they do not harm others or infringe the legal and/or human rights of others in following such precepts.
Only through reason can we reach agreements and principles by which we can all be governed. The taking, in any form, of one or another set of religious precepts as a basis for our laws is a recipe for conflict, violence, revolution and civil war. (And would not enactment into civil law of Roman Catholic religious laws be a valid reason for others to claim that Islamic sharia law should also be enacted?).
Such a social disaster is evident in Bosnia-Herzegovina where fear and suspicion that laws based upon or favoring the beliefs of one or another religious group will be imposed by the State on everyone is the cause of civil war and barbaric crimes, such as rape camps and "ethnic cleansing".
Atheists in particular have a desire to live our lives free of religious rules and edicts: For us, "freedom of religion" is freedom from religion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
including hate comments from believers :-)