June 2nd 2009

Dr. George Tiller and late-term abortions

By Marie Alena Castle

Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the anti-abortion zealots would like everyone to think late-term abortions are performed in the last couple of months of pregnancy, and never for a good reason. (Women’s life, health and wellbeing, and severe fetal defects are not considered good reasons.) Perhaps a real-life example will help everyone (at least the decent people) understand this issue.   When I was 5 ½ months pregnant, I started filling up with huge amounts of fluid. The doctor said it indicated a severe fetal abnormality of some kind. Since I was a devout Catholic at that time, abortion was not even considered.   I spent the next 2 ½ months in considerable physical and mental pain. (Misogynist anti-abortion zealots, I have found, dismiss this as unimportant. They have empathy only for fetal life — and then only until it’s born.) At 8 months, the doctor said there was no point in continuing the pregnancy and the suffering I was enduring, so he decided to induce labor. If the fetus was actually OK, the slightly premature birth would do no harm.   A cute red-haired baby girl was born looking quite healthy, although weighing only 4 pounds. However, examination showed her esophagus was solid instead of hollow and her intestines were just a fibrous mass. She could not eat. It took her a few days to starve to death.   Late term abortions are performed to prevent such needless tragedies. (Of course, the baby was baptized, so I’m sure the zealots think that made the ordeal well worthwhile.)

No Comments yet »

May 3rd 2009

Charging fees for city services

By Marie Alena Castle
For cities (such as Coon Rapids, as reported on May 2) to consider charging fees to those who call for police or fire protection is outrageous. Property taxes already cover those services. If extra fees are needed, why not simply extend the service fee to property that pays no taxes at all, such as churches? This would bring in all the money needed and be more fair than increasing the burden on those who already pay more because the tax-exempt pay nothing.

No Comments yet »

April 6th 2009

A strikingly uninformed op-ed piece

By Marie Alena Castle

David Lebedoff’s April 5 Opinion Exchange piece was strikingly uninformed in its assumption that those who do not believe in a heaven and hell necessarily have no moral constraints and live only for pleasure and to accumulate material things. He claims the new phenomenon of widespread disbelief in heaven and hell is at the root of the predatory behavior that brought on our economic crisis and is making this a secular nation. Lebedoff cites no data on the religious beliefs of Wall Street traders and corporate CEOs or for his assertion that people with heaven-hell beliefs tend to treat each other better. He gives no evidence that he knows what he’s talking about.

Reprehensible actions are nothing new. They were rampant when society was saturated with belief in heaven and hell, often because of that belief. All bad actors can rationalize their behavior, including convincing themselves they’re doing the will of God or that God is rewarding them. It takes a legal system of enforced laws and regulations to control them. God is believed to forgive even a heinous crime at the drop of a prayer, but a judge and jury are not so easily persuaded.

Lebedoff admits reluctantly that this nation is becoming increasingly secular as mainstream churches empty, and hopes some other belief will arise to replace heaven-hell to keep us in check. We have good news for Lebedoff. That other belief is here and has been around a long time. It’s embodied in the non-dogmatic, non-hedonistic, atheistic worldview that our natural world and our one short life are all we have or ever will have. Reason and consequences teach us (however slowly) that we should make this world and this life the best we can for as many as we can. Our evolved human compassion and the need to survive drive this view. We are all on this unstable little rock together and we need each other’s support, not divisive beliefs, greed, and turf wars.

Most atheists share this worldview and live worthy lives, contrary to the slander about our supposed moral deficiency. Over the centuries, we have worked to encourage people to think critically, to ask for evidence, to get the facts. We have sought to unite humanity while believers in heaven and hell divided people endlessly along religious, racial and ethnic lines — and still do. Our secular ideas informed the creation of a Constitution that, for the first time in history, separated religion and government to give us freedom of conscience.

We were among the leaders in abolishing slavery, working for civil rights, and achieving equality for women. We lead today in supporting reproductive freedom for women. We have been in the forefront of support for stem cell research that promises treatment and cure for many illnesses and disabling conditions. Unlike some churches, you will not find atheist groups in conflict over same-sex marriage. We support it as simply reflective of a harmless natural variation in sexuality. As social issues go, it’s a no-brainer.

In all these efforts and more, we have never needed the promise of heaven or the threat of hell to try to right the wrongs of this world and reduce its unconscionable level of suffering. There is nothing in the atheistic worldview that can be used to justify mistreatment of our fellow humans — no holy book to quote, no religious leader to obey. If Lebedoff’s hope for a moral, secular society is realized, it will be because we atheists have been working for that as hard as we can. If we have a purpose in life, that’s it.

No Comments yet »

April 4th 2009

Obama vs the Catholic hierarchy

By Marie Alena Castle 

So now the Catholic hierarchy is upset because Pres. Obama is removing restrictions placed on abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research by the Bush Administration. They accuse Obama of being “anti-Catholic” for not wanting to make Catholic doctrine the law of the land. Don’t they pay any attention to the Constitution? It guarantees freedom of religion but forbids government establishment of religion. Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not Canon law.

The Bush restrictions violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause by placing sectarian doctrines into law that have no valid secular justifications. Arguments for the restrictions are based solely on theological constructs that cannot be verified, such as the existence of single-celled persons and marriage as a God-ordained sacrament. (The only secular justification for restricting abortion might be to categorize pregnant women as a public utility subject to government regulation-and wouldn’t that be an interesting debate!)

Theology is none of the government’s business; promoting the general welfare is. No religion has the right to trump the general welfare by imposing its beliefs on all of us through legislation or workplace disruptions and tax coddling.

2 Comments »

March 25th 2009

How the media support discrimination against atheists

By Marie Alena Castle

Ever wondered why atheists rank at rock bottom in public acceptance? Even below Muslims right after 9/11?  Blame the media and their religious reporting. A fine example is the Minneapolis Star Tribune, whose weekly Faith & Values pages consistently promote faith only, never secular values. We get to read about trivial do-gooder articles and even more trivial doctrinal and ritualistic beliefs. On March 24 they had a huge article with photos about the Catholic Church’s reinstatement of its imaginary indulgences that supposedly lessen one’s time in an imaginary purgatory in which one works off the residual punishment for largely imaginary sins (pretty much anything related to sex). Meanwhile, on March 12, we sent the Strib editor and also the religion editor the following email. There has been no response:

NEWS SUGGESTION

TO: Nancy Barnes and Jeff Strickler

You have no doubt been reading about the increasing number of nonreligious people in this country, now at about 15%, as reported in your March 9 issue. It might be of considerable public interest to know more about this demographic. What does the increase mean in terms of the political and social effects? What would the godless do if they organized as aggressively as, say, the religious right? What political and social values do the nonreligious have? I’m sure you can think of other good questions and issues to explore.

We have several nonreligious organizations in the Twin Cities area that would be excellent sources for interviews. Most of the members come from religious backgrounds, so can provide some insight into the reasons for the increase, as well as the social/political ramifications of possibly increased influence. They are:

Atheists For Human Rights, http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/

Minnesota Atheists, http://www.mnatheists.org/

Humanists of Minnesota, http://www.humanistsofmn.org/

Campus Atheists & Secular Humanists (CASH), http://www.cashumn.org/

Given that surveys always show nonbelievers to be the most unpopular group in society, this would be a good opportunity to show to what extent, if any, such antipathy has any factual basis.

Please contact me if you would like more information or sources of information. Thank you.

Marie Alena Castle, Communications Director, Atheists For Human Rights

2 Comments »

March 13th 2009

Saving single-celled persons

By Marie Alena Castle 

Michael Gerson’s March 12 column is a fine example of human imagination running amok. His opposition to Pres. Obama’s reversal of the Bush administrations abortion-related restrictions on funding for family planning and stem cell research is based on the bizarre premise that there are such things as single-celled persons and that to destroy a microscopic cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells (blastocysts) containing human DNA is tantamount to murder.

This sudden concern for single-celled life is a bit odd, given that, for 25 years, fertility clinics have been disposing of about 600,000 blastocysts annually as medical waste, with no noticeable outcry from the “all life is sacred” contingent of the religious community. What appears to be operating now is a drive to use stem cell research to elevate a religious belief to a position of authority and control in matters of public policy.

And it is entirely a religious belief that moves Gerson to assign personhood to stem cells and blastocysts. His Catholic religion has taught him that their god implants an immortal soul into each fertilized egg at the moment of conception, and that ensoulment is what creates a person. People are entirely free to believe this but, unless they can prove this actually happens, they should not expect that belief to be implanted in the laws of our land.

Gerson is dismayed that a Catholic (Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius) will be in charge of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, which oversees these matters. He should be pleased when public officials put the Constitution and its First Amendment ahead of this nation’s numerous, conflicting, and-as the stem cell controversy shows-sometimes absurd religious doctrines. It’s what they took an oath to do.

No Comments yet »

March 1st 2009

The real climate change issue

By Marie Alena Castle

The debate over whether climate change is happening, and whether nature or people are causing it, is beside the point. Either way, the climate always has and always will change. We are in trouble today because of overpopulation. Ages ago, when rivers dried up or glaciers advanced, people moved to other areas. They simply got out of the way of nature.  

That option is no longer available. If it were, we would not be cutting down rainforests to create needed cropland, building cities on flood plains and tectonic fault lines, and putting villages on the sides of volcanos. We would not be draining our aquifers and depleting fishing grounds faster than nature can replenish them — or perhaps spewing more global warming pollutants into the air than the climate can tolerate. The president of the Maldive Islands (eight feet above seal level) would not be desperate to buy tropical property where he can resettle his 300,000 people if global warming swamps the islands. Good luck to him on finding anything livable but uninhabited. We might not even be in economic distress if there were not too many people for the available jobs and/or too many people too poor to keep up mortgage payments.

Overpopulation is the most serious problem we face, and may even underlie most other problems, yet none of our leaders seem to be aware of it.

No Comments yet »

January 27th 2009

The real issue in the bioethics debate

By Marie Alena Castle

The Star Tribune’s January 26 article on bioethics, “Let’s talk about science,” would have been more useful if Susan Wolf had identified the opposing viewpoints accurately. The issue is not Republicans vs Democrats but religion vs science. Religious beliefs have no role to play in forming government policies on bioethics because they are untestable, mutually contradictory and have no factual basis. It’s not “partisan posturing” that Wolf says is interfering with “real dialogue,” but religious intrusion into an area in which it has no qualifications and nothing useful to say. If we have lost the capacity to talk about science, as Wolf says, it is because scientific advances have introduced severe challenges to religious beliefs, but to question those beliefs is a social taboo and political suicide.

1 Comment »

January 9th 2009

Thought for today

By Rodney Sheffer 

No field of intellectual endeavor is as riddled with as much egregious error as theology. Produced and promulgated in the complete absence of any science or objectivity of any kind, theology has been, and still is, a kind of intellectual masturbation that has infected and retarded the growth and development of Western Civilization for over 3000 years. 

3 Comments »

January 9th 2009

Convenient abortions

By Marie Alena Castle

It is absolutely despicable that these anti-abortion letter writers (the latest being Hale Meserow on Jan. 2) get so misty eyed over the abortion loss of an unfeeling, unthinking, partially formed fetus, yet dismiss the fully sentient woman as a self-centered airhead acting only out of “convenience.” Such heartless contempt for women is appalling! Without safe and legal abortions, hundreds of women have died in this country, and still do around the world every year from illegal and self-induced abortions. Doesn’t it ever occur to these tunnel visioned sadists that, just maybe, these are desperate women facing severe and very personal physical, economic, social and psychological challenges that none of their “pro-life” insultingly trivial promises of a year’s supply of diapers, or whatever, can lessen?

If Meserow and his fellow misogynists succeed in making abortion “a sad memory,” it will not become “unthinkable as slavery,” it will BE slavery-reproductive slavery for women, no longer able to live as free, self-determining human beings. Given that illegal abortions will certainly continue, so will the deaths of desperate women. Will Meserow and his cohorts care about the loss of these women? Hardly. They didn’t before Roe v Wade. Women will continue to be for these patriarchal control freaks what they have always been through the ages-nothing more than vessels for childbearing, and disposable ones at that.

6 Comments »

« Prev - Next »