My 99 Cents


God, Science, The Meaning of Life, etc.
May 13, 2007, 8:41 pm
Filed under: academia, books, culture, politics, religion

The ‘Big Three’ monotheisms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the subject of “Among the Disbelievers,” Daniel Lazare’s fascinating piece in this weeks’ Nation. Lazare provides a terrific overview of four recent atheist manifestos: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens; Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism; Islam by Michel Onfray and The Meaning of Life by Terry Eagleton.

Lazare takes a probing look at what he calls “the problem, more or less, confronting today’s reinvigorated atheist movement.”

“… religion now looks nearly as bad as royalism did in the late eighteenth century. But while united in their resolve to throw the bum out–God, that is–the antireligious forces appear to have given little thought to what to replace Him with should He go. They may not face the guillotine as a consequence. But they could end up making even bigger fools of themselves than the theologians they criticize.”

As someone who is alarmed and angered at the rise of religious fundamentalism in the US and around the globe, I was nonetheless impressed with Lazare’s critique.

 

 
 


Kansas Governor: Equipment for tornado cleanup is in Iraq
May 8, 2007, 4:45 am
Filed under: politics


how someone got through something
May 6, 2007, 2:28 am
Filed under: books, writing


Judge Dred
May 4, 2007, 4:42 am
Filed under: politics

Katha Pollitt rips the Supreme Court for last week’s decision upholding the so called Partial Birth Abortion Act.  The Law forbids intact dilation and extraction abortions “and, in flagrant violation of Roe v. Wade, lacked an exception to preserve the health of the woman.”

For the first time, the Supreme Court has ruled that the health of an actually existing human woman doesn’t matter, never mind Roe. Nor does a doctor’s judgment. What counts, according to Justice Kennedy’s majority decision, is that this particular method of abortion “devalues human life.” Besides, the woman, confused little flower nodding her head in the breeze, needs to be protected from regret, the “grief more anguished and sorrow more profound” that might come when she realizes the exact nature of the procedure. Regret! If that’s a criterion, no one could ever decide about anything.

This decision paves the way for future restrictions on a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. It replaces the the expertise of physicians and the rights of women with the beliefs of 5 men who know nothing about either.

Here’s more, but read the whole thing in the Nation:

Beyond all this, it’s flatly outrageous that five men–five devout Catholic men, 56 percent of the court–can impose their will on women’s bodies, talking about “anatomical landmarks” as if a woman’s reproductive system were some kind of national park. None of them will ever be pregnant or want or need an abortion. That should have made them humble. I wonder if anyone reading this will live to see a Supreme Court in which a five-woman majority rules on an issue in which the reproductive lives of men, and only men, are at stake. Right now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is all alone up there, watching her legacy go up in smoke.