Sister Margaret’s Choice

Sister Margaret was a senior administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. A 27-year-old mother of four arrived late last year, in her third month of pregnancy. According to local news reports and accounts from the hospital and some of its staff members, the mother suffered from a serious complication called pulmonary hypertension. That created a high probability that the strain of continuing pregnancy would kill her.

Op-Ed Columnist – Sister Margaret’s Choice – NYTimes.com

Anti-abortion forces are anti-woman and anti-life. (They value the unborn over someone who is actually alive after all) Don’t ever forget it.

Searching for Jesus in the Gospels

Searching for Jesus in the Gospels : The New Yorker

It drives me bonkers when people treat Jesus as a historical fact. Anyone who has studied the gospels knows they were pieced together at different times after the man is supposed to have lived and died. In fact the more you look at them, the more inconsistencies and contradictions you find.

I’m not saying the man wasn’t a historical fact because who the hell can tell for sure. I can be dead on sure that the Bible was pieced together and revised over several centuries by people with their own political agenda and it contradicts itself all the time. If it contradicts itself, then both versions of a story can not be taken to be the literal truth at the same time. It just doesn’t work that way folks.

With that in mind, how the hell can anyone who is referring to various versions and addition pick out any one thing and treat it is factual is beyond me.

If you read the Bible as an exercise in religious faith and you want to believe one part or another as the “gospel truth” that is fine. That’s religion.

…but if you are attempting to portray yourself as someone who studies the text with an academic eye it is completely ridiculous to assume anything is factual without proof to support it. It goes against the whole idea of looking at the documents with the eye of a historical observer.

This article isn’t the most flagrant offense I’ve seen but still…

Grrrr.

Belgium veil ban passes with widespread support

Belgium veil ban passes with widespread support – CSMonitor.com

Religious Freedom, blah, blah.
If a religion dictated that someone regularly beat their spouse and children, would we allow it legally?
If a religion dictated that woman couldn’t vote, would we look kindly on that?
If a religion forbid women to work or drive a car, would we look kindly on that?
If a religion dictated that a woman couldn’t speak to anyone outside her family would we allow her to opt out of testifying in legal cases?

I’m all for Religious Freedom as long as it doesn’t encourage any sort of class-ism or prohibit its members from participating fully in society.

On a personal level, I am inclined to take a dim view of a system that says men need take no responsibility for their own actions but women must pay the price for the actions of others who they themselves do not possess any power or influence over. That’s just wrong.

Bah! Wear the veil over all but your eyes at home if you want ladies, if you want to partake in society you shouldn’t be hiding yourself from it.