I Have My Doubts About Mary

While participating in a group conversation, someone expressed to us how the virgin birth of Jesus never sounded quite right to her growing up.

During my religious days, I never gave the issue much thought. It was a miracle. That was that. The Holy Ghost planted the seed in Mary's womb. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then someone else brought up the point that teen-age pregnancies are highest among the most religious regions of the United States.

She then pointed out how odd it was for Fundamentalists to believe that abstinence only programs can work when Mary still got pregnant as a virgin.

Oops!

Then the originator of this topic quipped:

Well . . . I have my doubts about Mary.

Yup.

Me, too . . . me, too.

Murdered?

Be forewarned. This post was hard for me to write. In turn, this post may be hard for you to read.

Before my dad passed away, he "crashed" the night before. He was already in the hospital. We received "the phone call" and rushed to his bedside.

So many of us were there. We circled around his bed and prayed.

He finally woke up and looked around. He wondered why we were all there praying. Why all the hubbub? After all, in his mind he had only fallen off to sleep.

I never noticed it, but my wife says tears started streaming down his cheeks; the reason for our presence finally dawned on him.

He realized now that he had almost died.

The doctors placed an oxygen mask over his face; this was a change from the thin, plastic oxygen tube that was customarily under his nose.

As the night went on, his breathing grew laborious. He developed an unquenchable thirst and wanted to remove the mask to drink some water. The nurse insisted that he didn't do that.

The staff would only allow him quick sips of water, but forbade any prolonged removal of his mask. In fact, they would only push the mask to the side or pull it up in order to insert a straw into his mouth from time to time.

He complained more and more about that mask.

Finally, I approached a nurse in private.

"My dad wants to take his mask off. Why can't he?" I accosted. He's really uncomfortable with it on".

"If your dad takes that mask off, he will die," the nurse tersely replied. Then, she walked away.

What can one say to that?

So, I found myself doing all I could to make sure that mask stayed on his face. But knowing that the mask was a discomfort, I tried to compensate by asking him for anything he might need.

The next day, my dad's situation grew worse. Breathing seemed like it was more trouble than it was worth for him. And he didn't seem coherent any more.

At that point, he was probably already gone. Maybe not. But I just couldn't get through to him any more. He wouldn't speak clearly. He couldn't write anything that made sense. He only motioned and pointed, yet he never seemed to point at anything in particular.

Though oddly, he never stopped fidgeting with his mask.

I sat with him for a while. The I decided I'd go home for just a bit and come back later that on to visit with him. I turned and waved "bye" to him in the doorway. He waved back.

That seemed to be the only coherent connection I made with him that day.

After I left-- when no one was looking-- he took off his mask.

******

Though this was hard for me to write, today will not be a sad day for me. So please, try not to be sad yourself if you actually read through all of that.

I can't help thinking of my dad after hearing that Eluana Englaro, has passed away-- the poor lady in Italy who was preserved in a vegetative state for 17 years.

Sad news, yes, but I'm sure her father can start seeking closure now.
And Eluana can finally rest in peace.

While the Italian government was attempting to pass an emergency measure to block the euthanasia of Eluana, doctors had already removed her feeding tube and administered medicines to keep her comfortable as she passed away.

People are calling her death a murder despite the fact that her vegetative state seemed permanent.

So, was Eluana murdered? Was her death a "tragic execution"?

I think murder and execution are strong words.

I'd rather use the words cruel and inhumane.

But that's for wanting to keep her alive until she passed "naturally".

And now I think back to my dad. If I had the power to keep him alive, I certainly would have done so. If I could have kept that mask on his face, I would have.

But that isn't what my dad wanted.

Today, I respect that.

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death: An Update

In a very recent post, I referenced an article about a father in Italy who is trying to allow his daughter to pass away after being in a vegetative state for 17 years.

The father finally received permission for the courts, only to have his wishes for his daughter revoked at the last moment.

Many religious people speak out against the father's desire for euthanasia, calling the act outright murder.

And the courts say that the clinic cannot allow the daughter to die because of the unlawfulness to pull feeding tubes from a patient. Doing so would be refusing food to a patient.

I wonder if church leaders would change their minds about euthanasia should one of their Cardinals or priests fall ill and remain in a vegetative state for the next 17 years.

I also wonder how many religious people can call euthanasia outright murder when they don't even want scientists to learn more about stem cells -- which can prolong and save lives.

I admit, pulling feeding tubes does seem harsh. But can't a peaceful, humane way be found besides starvation?

Can't a more humane solution be found than just keeping her alive as a vegetable? How is keeping this poor woman in this state any more humane than euthanasia?

Oh, that's right . . . her vegetative state is God's will.

Sorry, I forgot about that.

Here's the follow-up article: Italian Right-to-die move blocked

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death

On matters of abortion, I have mixed feelings. I get uneasy trying to say that we can draw the line between when an embryo becomes a human life as opposed to when it is not.

From a purely biological and genetic view, an embryo seems to only be a cluster of cells during the very early stages of a pregnancy.

But, for someone who believes in God, the soul, and divine purpose -- that embryo is life right then and there. Even if birth control was employed, but failed in some way.

But also consider the drive for reproduction and how it cause people to make poor choices. Some people are not ready for offspring though they engage in sexual activity. And unfortunately, many people will go to dangerous lengths to terminate a pregnancy.

But for all one's trying to avoid pregnancy, you wonder why people allow such to happen if they didn't really want a child.

So, I understand the complexity of the debate on abortion. This is very difficult to solve.


But, sometimes wanting to preserve life only for the sake of preserving life could be a mistake.

But I'm no longer talking about abortion. Now, I'm talking about euthanasia.


I distinguish euthanasia from suicide only in that one who commits euthanasia is in the painful last stages of a terminal illness or is in a vegetative state. Or, arguably, a person has requested not to be resuscitated should they lose consciousness and the capacity to breath on one's own.

Should the religious beliefs of the living block the free will of people in such circumstances?

Consider the story covered in the following article? When it comes to euthanasia, do we even have a right to be the judge?

Italy Woman Sent to Clinic to Die

Life in the Closet

Living in the closet isn't easy. People should never feel afraid of losing important relationships, gainful employment, or even life and limb simply because of a difference in belief. This problem should not exist in a free society.

I've learned of others who have lost their spouse, their kids, their family and friends because they have chosen to withdraw from religious faith. This problem is not limited to Christianity. Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives in constant danger because she left Islam and became atheist. Jews who have converted to Christianity have given accounts of undergoing persecution to the extent of physical harm.

And think of others who find that heterosexuality does not work for them. And those who feel out of place with the gender assignment that society imposes. These people must risk coming out of their closets or suffer oppression while hiding in their closet. Either way, freedom is suppressed.

We who do not conform to social mores such as belief in god, heterosexuality, or Judeo-Christian mindset are not the misfits of the United States of America.

Instead, the United States of America exists for people like us.

Never forget that.

For everyone who hides in a closet and for everyone that braves coming out -- you have my respect and admiration. My thoughts go out to you and I hope that you always stay encouraged while you walk through your life-journey.

Love and Marriage Pt. 2

In my previous post, I submitted the idea that marriage in the United States had nothing to do with god, from a legal perspective. Because of this, marriage doesn't make sexual activity moral in my opinion.

Legal -- yes. Moral -- not necessarily. A lot of unethical activities are "legal". And lot of illegal activities should be legal -- this is how the unethical suppression of civil rights is committed.

So then, if the the law only regards marriage as a contract between husband, wife, and the State -- how can the State ban homosexuals from marriage without being unconstitutional and discriminatory?

Remember that from the State's perspective, God has nothing to do with marriage. So, if religion cannot be the State's excuse for banning same-sex marriage --what excuse does the State have?

By the way, did you know that years ago interracial marriages were illegal?

Banning interracial marriage didn't have anything to do with God either.

Or did it?

Love and Marriage

Love and marriage, love and marriage | Its an institute you can't disparage
Ask the local gentry | And they will say its elementary

Song : Love and Marriage -- words by Sammy Cahn & Jimmy Van Heusen

Girls who made abstinence pledges after participating in abstinence-only programs had premarital sex just as often as girls who did not make such pledges. And interestingly, contraception use and safe sex practices were lower among the group that broke their abstinence pledges when compared to the group that never made pledges.

The popular conclusion: abstinence-only programs don't work. But programs that couple abstinence awareness with contraception awareness work best.

Die hard supporters of abstinence-only programs argue that higher moral values due to religion and family upbringing caused the abstaining girls of both groups to practice their abstinence until marriage.

After mulling this study over, I started to wonder:

Does does marriage truly make sex moral?

Consider that marriage exists in two forms here in the United States.

Marriage is first and foremost a secular contract between the you, your spouse and the State. God is not a true part of the marriage equation according to the State.

Don't believe me? Ask your pastor to give you a divorce. Won't work. The State will still consider you married until you use legal measures to get a divorce.

Still don't believe me? Ask your pastor to marry you and your mate. Either before or after the ceremony, he'll ask you for the marriage license. See what happens if you don't already have one.

Marriage as a religious union between God and a united couple has no legal weight.

A religious group can consider you married all day long . . . but you'd better not file your taxes together if you didn't get your marriage license signed.

Unless of course, you were married based on Common Law. But that's the "immoral" way to get married, right? That doesn't count before God. But Common Law matters to the State.

So again, what power does marriage have to make sex moral? Because, here in the United States, God has no real power over marriage.

If God does have power over marriage, then why does the State control marriage and divorce?

After considering this, my view is that consenting adults have committed no crime or immorality if they choose to have sex outside of marriage. Immorality begins when an adult takes advantage of an adolescent or another adult who is non-consenting.

And as for adolescents with adolescents . . . well, few parents want to condone this. But, this happens often. Some parents today may blush when they think back on their own teen years.

So then, be prepared for your adolescent to have premarital sex one day. Yes, teach him or her abstinence. But, also teach him or her to use a condom or birth control. Your teen just might yield to the temptation of premarital sex one day. In such a case, wouldn't you want your teen to practice safe sex?

Here are a few consider:

How Government Got Involved in Marriage
(This is a PDF file. But if you got this far, it's worth it!)

Husband and Wife

The Lucifer Effect

Does morality have to come from god? What if religious people are susceptible to cruelty just as secular people are? The following study shows that people tend to obey authority figures even when the requests solicit immoral and cruel behavior. And in a series of requests which demand ever increasing immorality, people remain surprisingly obedient. Yes -- even when each subsequent request demands more and more cruelty, people still tend to comply.

People have a harder and harder time refusing subsequent requests once they have committed to the first request. And if the requests become gradually more demanding, people's tendency to continue to comply to cruel requests remain. And to make things even worse, people tend to trust and obey someone who appears to be an authority figure -- usually with little or no question.

If both religious and secular people are susceptible to these human faults, what does this imply about morality?

Read about the study: The Lucifer Effect

I also mention morality issues in these previous blog posts:

So, Now I can be an axe murderer, right?

A Little Perspective

Martin the Mean

On a side note, confidence schemes and cult leaders often use the tactic of gradually raising the steaks of their requests to their own advantage. Keep an eye out next time you run across some smooth talking scoundrel. Such people also like to paint themselves as authority figures, too. Victims don't question their predator's motives as often. Pushing victims outside of their comfort zone in small increments causes them to commit acts which they would hardly ever do under normal circumstances.

A Little Perspective

I've had the pleasure of receiving several great recommendations for short videos, books, and documentaries over the past week or two. I have a lot to soak in; there is much to see. I still haven't had the chance to follow up on all the suggestions yet, but I am eager to do so.

One short video so far has truly impressed me and has opened my perspective concerning this planet we all share.

Carl Sagan provides an amazing perspective concerning our existence in a short video called The Pale Blue Dot. Watch it. If my link doesn't work, simply visit YouTube and search for:

The Pale Blue Dot -- full speech

I found the film humbling and touching. Somewhat saddening and quite sobering; yet, somehow the film was still very inspiring and hopeful all at the same time.

And I must say . . . people who argue that morality cannot exist without god would be challenged after gaining this new and awesome perspective. After seeing where and what we really are in this universe, I can't help but to have the desire to cherish life. And not only my life, but the life of every other human being around me.

Isn't that sentiment morality enough?

So, Now I Can Be an Axe Murderer, Right?

Now that I don't believe in any religion any more . . . it's ok to be a serial killer, right? Cheat on my significant other and go on a binge of debauchery, right?

That sort of thinking reminds me of when Paul the Apostle finished explaining the liberating implications of grace in the book of Romans. Now that grace frees the Christian from the Law, we can do whatever sins we please, right? That way . . . grace will just heap up higher and higher!

Paul's response was: God forbid!

But does lack of religious belief necessitate an immoral standard?

God forbid!

I asked myself once . . . why did I resist sin when I was a Christian? Hell sounded like a really, really bad place . . . so, you know . . . I was trying to avoid going there! But, why, for instance, didn't I cheat on my significant other? Would I cheat if I knew I could never get caught?

I decided that I would never cheat even if I knew I could get away with it. Why? Love and loyalty. I didn't want to hurt my lover in that way. I can't do it. My heart sank thinking about it.

But, maybe I'd skip church or miss a few tithe payments if I know I could never go to hell.

But what about not hurting God?

"Because the Bible said so" isn't really the best motivator. Nor is hell, in my opinion. Love should drive our actions. Sharing and helping. Recognizing that all people are unique, yet still share in the common human experience.

I decided I wanted to follow God's word because I didn't want to hurt Him.

But, sometimes God didn't seem like he was there. Hard not to hurt someone that you've never physically met or seen visibly. No audio confirmation ever came from they sky or anything -- it all came from within the inner ear. Who can really know if that's God or myself telling me what I really wanted to hear inside my own head?

Much of my morality was really just love for my family, friends, and fellow man. The teachings of my mom and church played a big role -- yes. But, in the end, these were only influences and guides. My sensitivity to my own conscience and common sense ultimately prevailed.

All else was just fear of hell.

So, I can see why someone would just lose all morality if they lost their religion -- assuming that hell is the only deterrent someone has from premarital sex, adultery, or even killing someone. With that mind set, you'll consider those acts more freely if you ever conclude hell doesn't exist. But, if you love and respect your fellowman regardless -- hell never matters -- whether you're religious or not.

An article came out in the NY Times about the evolution of morality in primates -- hey, aren't we humans called primates?

Anyway -- chimps are found risking their lives to save each other. Older primates scold younger ones when they break social rules. Expressions of empathy and concern form on their faces when they see another in constant pain. Especially if they feel like they've caused it.

Besides, if our laws came from God and He's "no respect of person", then why can King David have several wives and I can't. I do not wish for multiple wives. But if I ever did, I'd be considered an immoral polygamist, nowadays.

Or, a Mormon, perhaps?

Remember, also, that the US Constitution separates Church from State. Sure, US law may resemble Judeo-Christian morality. But, the Constitution clearly expresses that the law is made by the Congress. And Congress represents the people's will from their various 50 states within the Union.

If this really were a Christian nation, we'd have a Pastor . . . not a President. We'd have a great Congregation -- not a Congress. And, we wouldn't have the Constitution, we'd have the King James Version of the Holy Bible for our law book.

Many freedoms would become illegal. Prohibition would rise again. Forget about that beer on the weekends after a hard week of work. Unless . . . our US Pastor were Catholic! Just think . . . one night the police might kick in your door because you missed church last Sunday. Getting ex-communicated or disfellowshipped could mean getting deported to another country! You would become a sex offender if you simply had premarital sex with another consenting adult. Don't even mention homosexuality!

The Flavor of Love and all of it's spin off variants couldn't air on TV anymore.

Hey . . . wait . . . maybe that would be a good thing!

Are there things that should be legal in our "free" society that aren't today due to the religious moral right? Think about it.

Church and State are separate. That's the law. Maybe that isn't what's done in practice, but those are the ideals that our Founding Fathers agreed upon -- regardless of what any of their religious orientations were.

Religion and morality are separate, too. Not true? Why aren't only the religious people good? Non-religious people can be quite moral and good. It's just as easy for a non-religious person to be moral as it is for a religious person to be dirty and rotten.