Infidels: Feedback : January 1999

January 1999

Your Comments on the
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Discussion
and Jan Brazill's reply.
(click here!)

Send Feedback

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-bio.html

This is the first scientific verification of the psychic relativity of space and time, through the dreaming function...Unfortunately, we continue to suffer from an age-old "misoneism" - a fear of the new and the unknown...But ignorance has never been a guarantee of security..."For a message to be received, there has to be a sender."

todd laurence < delaurence@reporters.net>
new york, ny USA - Sunday, January 31, 1999 at 09:21:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Since Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the High Priest (Matt 16:65) according to Jewish law of the time he would have been stoned to death by the Jews, not handed over to the Romans and crucified. Jesus committed no crime against the Romans according to Pilate (Luke 23:14) yet he crucified him anyway due to the persistence of the mob. This doesn't make any sense from as from what we know about Pilate is that he was a particularly brutal man who would more than likely order his soldiers to violently disperse the crowd rather than give in to their whims.

Anyway, I think that the entire Jewish trial is a fabrication added to the Gospels in order to alleviate the Romans from the guilt of executing Jesus (who, if he was crucified was almost certainly a political dissident) and place the blame on the Jews. Early Christians would stand to benefit from this as it would aid in the conversion of Romans who were persecuting them at the time.

But I have a few questions. Did Jesus's trial take place during the Jewish festival of Passover? During the festival of Passover was it against the law to hold a blasphemy trial? During the festival of Passover was it against the law for the High Priests to execute a prisoner? Is there any reason to believe that if it was against the law to execute a prisoner during Passover that the High Priests would trump up charges of sedition against the Roman state to get that prisoner executed rather than wait a few days until Passover had passed?

You guys have a great site, keep it up.

Judas Calway (Yes, that is my real name) <vlas_n_enik@hotmail.com>
Boston, Mass. USA - Sunday, January 31, 1999 at 06:29:40 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Hi, I īm 15 and Iīm from small town in the middle of Europe. In the first I donīt know if you want some discussion partner from europe and especially from a small town in the middle of this small continent. Your pages are interesting for me and I would to take a part on your discussion. I have an idae to your web sites. Itīs: Sex, alcoholic drink and drugs are good for you beleive it some religion?

Robert Musil <mjunior@telecom.cz>
Jablonec nad Nisou, Northen Bohemia Czech Republic - Saturday, January 30, 1999 at 08:04:40 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/

Obviously there are no shortages of fools in the world as your group of "intellectuals" scream of the folly you espouse. Why do you try so hard to deceive people? Please keep your crap in your own toliet, don`t take it out and show what you are made up of!

Michael Dees <mdees1putt@aol.com >
USA - Friday, January 29, 1999 at 21:11:25 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Normally we would not print Mr. Dees' rather juvenile message because it contributes nothing to the ongoing discussions within freethought and the philosophy of religion. (See the next two feedback messages for more of the same.) However, in February's issue of ii is a story on e-mail threats that mentions this message so I have left it in this month's feedback. What worries me most about Dees and the increasing numbers like him who fear honest critical inquiry is that they contribute to an anti-intellectual atmosphere that could eventually lead to ignorance, fear, and a new "Dark Ages." Behind the weak excuse that novels like Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath or Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are indoctrinations into secular humanism, fundamentalists really hope to drag schoolchildren down to their own level rather than to allow them to rise to something higher. Jerry Falwell wrote in America Can Be Saved,

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

Falwell gives new meaning to the saying "ignorance is bliss." Indeed, just this week (Jan. 30) religious right leaders have announced a new campaign to mobilize Christians in the U.S. in an effort to pull all Evangelical children out of public schools. The idea behind the boycott is to depress enrollment, stall funding, and to close all public schools in the country for good. (See the Dallas Morning News story at http://www.dallasnews.com/religion-nf/rel21.htm.) This is perhaps the logical outcome of a decades-long attempt to thwart science, humanities, and arts teaching in the schools. If the religious right had its way, our schools would resemble those in countries like Afghanistan, where pupils recite the Qur'an all day but learn nothing about literature, biology, chemistry, or physics. Frankly, I feel enormous embarrassment for fundamentalist Christians right now. Hopefully, they will share my embarrassment as well, stop hurling insults at scientists and educators, and begin to embrace learning rather than fear it.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/december.html

I find it extremely horrifying that your site even exists. I'd like to ask you a very important question about yourself that I wonder if you've even considered. I appreciate the fact that you have done research into Christianity and have decided not to believe. (however I find it amazing that someone could read Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Mere Chritianity and consider it poorly thought out) What concerns me is your decsion to make it your purpose to convince others not to beleive. I guess what I'm trying to say is most people who don't beleive in something just leave it alone. Why you choose to design a site for what you DONT beleive is almost a condradiction in itself. Obviously you beleive Christianity is powerful enough to go out and fight it. And if you beleive in it's power, then you have to consider how it got so powerful in the first place. Probably because it's true. And if you consider for just a second that the Bible is accurate and God's Word, then you may want to consder the underlying force that you are working for....the ultimate enemy. I watch post after post after post of people who you are helping send straight to hell. May God be kind and merciful to you. I will pray for you and all the others.......

follower <mjordan@norcomld.com >
Boca Raton, FL USA - Friday, January 29, 1999 at 12:36:10 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/blas.html

I think your article on Blasphemopus Allegations was disgusting and should not be allowed on the internet for young minds to read. Inferring that God had an affair is nothing but trash. If you like printing things about God, print Acts 2:38. It would do all readers a lot more good.

Dorothy Boucher <dot2924@hotmail.com >
Troy, Mo USA - Friday, January 29, 1999 at 08:35:07 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I could not help but notice that the primary focus of your website dealt with isssues of faith. It is quite evident that you stand in opposition to the belief in God and the resurection of Jesus Christ. As a secular website however I would expect you to express your own viewpoints rather than attack those of others. I think if you honestly focus on your own beliefs/faith,(being that there is no God) you will be hard pressed to come up with a reasonable explanation for our state of being and the nature of the universe. It seems your identity is defined merely by your opposition to God, rather than on some original thought. I would challenge you to make an honest investigation of God and to not be so naive to suppose he is not there. He may be closer than you think. Have a good day and God Bless!

Tim Cripe <dude3595@yahoo.com>
columbus, oh USA - Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 11:08:04 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html

I am occasionally asked to declare my religious affiliation and I usually explain that I am an agnostic. My young daughter Melissa must have heard me explaining the agnostic philosophy and decided that she would follow my example. The other day a young friend from a devoutly religious family came to visit and asked Melissa what religion she followed. I don't have a religion said Melissa, "I'm an Optimistic." Sounds like a good religious alternative. Join now and avoid the rush.

Michael Cunnington <mc@sa.apana.org.au >
Adelaide, SA Australia - Monday, January 25, 1999 at 05:45:02 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethought.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/

Thought you might enjoy reviewing my novel, Jesus Christ Jr. The following is a brief prologue:

What if man has an evolved adaptive brain that can be traced back to the beginning of life on earth? Even more important, what if man has three evolved distinctive brains all trying independently to solve the same mental dilemmas? Could one of our brains be more animalistic than we want to accept? If so—and the field of evolutionary psychology suggests just that—does this mean that the different brains process and respond to environmental stimuli in different ways? Does this imply that current methods of psychotherapy are obsolete in that they address only our intellectual or most developed brain? This is the psychotherapeutic issue dealt with in Jesus Christ Jr. Dr. One, a central character and the author of Evolution of Phenomenal Growth, has developed a therapeutic approach that takes into account all three of man’s evolved brains. Dr. One’s method for dealing with man’s three brains is humorously interwoven into the plot of Jesus Christ Jr. Read first three chapters online at: http://cust2.iamerica.net/thrasher/

Andrew Justin Thrasher < thrasher@iamerica.net>
Lake Charles, LA USA - Sunday, January 24, 1999 at 21:22:45 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/

I enjoy your magazine very much--when I get to see it. The local library here has a "put and take" magazine section and there's always a month-old copy of Free Inquiry left in the bin. I think I'm the only person who waits for it.

My father was an atheist who used to read the Bible to us around the dinner table because, as he used to say, he wanted us to be atheists but didn't want us to become "empty-headed atheists." In that one respect, I am not my father's son and consider myself a Christian believer.

I don't think Jesus "glowed in the dark." To my mind, the sentence "Jesus was a man" is a statement of FACT. On the other hand, the sentence "Jesus was the Son of God" is a statement of FAITH. To me, "Christianity" is faith in the historical Jesus as a manifestation of God.

I enjoy reading freethought as well as Christian scholarship (not apologetics!) and the hysterical ravings of the fundamentalist fringe. The new evidence coming to light about the historical figure of Jesus facinates me. Like Peter Jennings once said concerning the news media: read west coast papers, east coast papers, liberal and conservative ones, undergound papers and elite establishment publications--then you may get a general idea of what is going on.

I think that is a very useful--can I use the word?--"belief"

James Warren <aikido7@aol.com>
Des Moines, WA USA - Sunday, January 24, 1999 at 18:24:06 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/

Regading the the piece Mr. Till wrote refuting the "Two Amram's theory" and the chronology of Jochbed. While I ceretainly agree there were not two Amram's I have one major question. Does Mr. Till actually read Biblical Hebrew and did he read the text in the original? It seems doubtful based upon his theories. The chornology issue is largely answered by the fact that Amram married his aunt, which is clearly stated in the Hebrew text.

I would suggest the if Mr. Till is capable of dealing with the Hebrewe text he read the commentary by 11th century Rabbi Shlomo Yizchaki (Rashi) and the Talmud Baba Bathra 123 Folios pages A&B. Without the ability to deal with these primary sources, as well as the rendering of the original Hebrew text Mr. Tills' theories have all the impact of being kissed through a screen door.

Rafel Guber <Talner@aol.com>
New York, NY USA - Sunday, January 24, 1999 at 16:36:55 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Are you arguing that one cannot read a translation of a document and understand what was said in the original? If I, for example, read a translation of Les Miserables, which I could read in the original French if I so desired, would I understand what Hugo said in the original French? Perhaps a few nuances would be missed, but I'm sure that overall I would be able to derive the meaning of the plot line, characterizations, conflict, and other literary elements that were written originally in French. Do I "read" Hebrew? No, I would not say that I "read" Hebrew, although I studied it in college. I spent five years working as a missionary in France, and I can "read" French, but I can't really read it in the sense that I can read English. I am sure that in reading an English translation of an original French work, I would derive more from the translation, if it has been done by a competent translator, than I would in reading the original text. This notion that one should not criticize the Bible unless he/she can read it in the original language is a smoke screen that biblicists frequently lay down to try to rationalize obvious problems in the biblical text.

All of that aside, I find your "feedback" rather mystifying and at times downright ambiguous. I know, for example, that Moses' father Amram married his aunt, and I don't need to read the original Hebrew text to understand that. Here are three English translations of Exodus 6:20.

KJV: And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

NIV: 20 Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

NRSV: Amram married Jochebed his father's sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram's life was one hundred thirty-seven years.

Now what reasonably literate person reading these translations of Exodus 6:20 would not be able to determine that Amram married his father's sister or, in other words, his aunt. Segond's French translation renders the verse like this: "Amram prit pour femme Yokebed, sa tante: elle lui donna pour fils Aaron et Moise. La duree de la vie d'Amram fut de 137 ans." The first part of this is saying, "Amram took for a wife Jochebed, his aunt...." So anyone reading this verse in French would also clearly recognize that Amram married his aunt, and he could make this determination without reading it in the original Hebrew. If you have a point to make, you certainly failed to make it. Not only that, you were also extremely vague. You said above, "The chronology issue is largely answered by the fact that Amram married his aunt, which is clearly stated in the Hebrew text." Well, the fact that Amram married his aunt is also clearly stated in the English and French translations that I cited above. The fact is that I have 27 Bible translations in my personal library, and I haven't found a one that is not very clear in stating that Amram married his aunt. Your claim that one would have to read the text in the original Hebrew to understand this is clearly a straw man that has no relevance to anything that I said. Besides that, you don't even explain why the "chronology problem" is "largely answered" by the fact that Amram married his aunt. Why would that be so?

The problem is that Exodus 12:40 clearly states that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt 430 years, yet the Exodus 6 genealogy shows that Moses was only the great-grandson of Levi, who was a grown man with three sons (Gen. 46:11) when the Israelites came into Egypt. The ages given in the Exodus 6 genealogy just do not allow for 430 years to have passed when Moses allegedly led the Israelites out of Egypt. Levi lived to be 137 (Ex. 6:16). Kohath, his son, who had already been born before the descent into Egypt (Gen. 46:11), lived to be 133 (Ex. 6:18), and Amram, Kohath's son, lived to be 137 (Ex. 6:20). If we assume that Kohath was just a nursing infant when the Israelites went into Egypt, and if we assume that Kohath's last act on earth was the siring of his son Amram, and if we assume that Amram's last act on earth was the siring of Moses, that would mean that a maximum of only 271 years could have passed between the descent of the Israelites into Egypt and the birth of Moses. The Bible text states that Moses was 80 years old when he led the Israelites out of Egypt (Ex. 7:7), so 271 + 80 equals only 351 years. What happened to the other 79 years? I'd be very interested to know how the fact that Amram married his aunt would solve the chronology problem. You didn't explain how it would solve the problem; you simply stated arbitrarily that it would. Now let's see you present your case.

Common sense should tell you that if Moses' mother was his father's aunt, that would be very reasonable evidence that the Israelites could not have sojourned in Egypt for 430 years. Keep in mind that the biblical text claims that Levi was a grown man with three children when he went into Egypt. Keep in mind too that Kohath had already been born at that time, so if Jochebed was Kohath's sister, that only minimizes the chances that 430 years could have passed from the time of the descent into Egypt to the exodus, which was led by a man purported to be the son of a woman who was the sister of a man who had already been born when the Israelite descent into Egypt occurred.

At any rate, if you would care to discuss this issue on line, perhaps on my Errancy list, I would be happy to do so. Just send me the word, and I'll add you to the list. I am going to send a cc of this to the list so that the members will know that you have initiated a discussion on the subject.

Farrell Till

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

No one terrestrial an claim knowledge of anything celestial other than a belief.

Laura Boivin <tourist@isys.ca>
Sudbury , Ont. CanadaUSA - Sunday, January 24, 1999 at 03:38:47 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/indulgences-cont.html

See they still haven't included "Treat a non-Christian as you would a Christian". All an all, treating people kindly and helping out in the community no matter what the reason will get us MUCH further ahead than asking the Church OR the Government to do it for us!

Rick Mullaney <rickety@dbc-mifco.com >
Portsmouth, NH USA - Saturday, January 23, 1999 at 08:03:21 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/infidels/web.scan/1999/scan01.html

I have the One True Date for the Rapture: April 15th, A.D. 6,000,001,999. By that time the sun will have pretty much fried the Earth, and if that ain't a tribulation I don't know what is. I picked April 15 because it's "a time, and two times, and a half time"...plus it's my birthday. See ya in Heaven, man.

Chuck <chuck@netease.net>
nowhere, TN USA - Saturday, January 23, 1999 at 00:50:54 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Okay, I'm not some wierdo-freak religious dork. I know there are quite a few out there, but we are not all that way. I really only know my life and my experiences, and that is that I do not claim to be without sin, nor do I feel I am better than anyone else in this world, Bill Clinton included. But what I do know is this, this life here pretty much sucks. Most everything that is enjoyable to do, at the time, is usually bad for you, not to mention a sin, for those of us who care. It seems to me that life is filled with a lot of disappointment and pain, and if this is it, then I would like to give up now. But what if it isn't? Is it a bad thing to try to live the most honest, upright and positive life I can while I'm here? To look for the positive in life and not just feel the negative? Don't we as humans try to find something to worship somewhere, whether it be money, relationships, power, etc. anyway? Why not direct all of our energy into a positive life, along with a hope that there is something better and a power so perfect and righteous, that we don't have to take on all of the worries of this life, let alone the worries of our final destination? I have known a lot of people, and have found that people who do have Jesus, know love, know peace and know joy. I am certainly not saying they are better people, because as I said, it is not a matter of being 'better' than others in worth. I just know that Jesus loves everyone, and proved it not only on the cross, but in the actions of his life while he was here. He has asked us to try to love others in that same way, and I just wanted to share that with anyone who is listening.

Rachel Janeway <rnjjaneway.com>
USA - Friday, January 22, 1999 at 05:39:30 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/astarte.html

It is a sad thing to waste a great mind. I would like very much to correspond with anyone that has the ability
to write these messages.

Obadyah Hawkins < yahshua2@camalott.com>
Clyde, Tx. USA - Thursday, January 21, 1999 at 06:48:58 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/

I just wanted to thank your organization [FFRF -Ed.] again for the scholarship that I won. It has provided me with enough money to continue my studies, which is incredible. Also, my regular column for the Arizona Daily Wildcat (circ. 45,000) daily espouses Atheist viewpoints and is regularly syndicated by Uwire.com (circ. 12.5 million). You have provided a fantastic opportunity to me and I am thankful. Please tell Dan Barker that I consider him a fantastic role model. I look forward to continued discourse with infidels.org, and have prepared several essays for eventual submission. I remain most sincerely yours,

Brad Wallace <bradw@u.arizona.edu >
Tucson, AZ USA - Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 22:23:45 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/

It is evident to me that you are actually no different than the so-called 'Christians' you claim to oppose. Seems to me you all hold to identical beliefs. It seems that you, as well as so-called 'Christians' believe that you all possess 'free-will'. But the bible actually teaches so plainly and so simply that there is no such thing as 'free-will'.

S. Baloga <balogas@aol.com>
Knoxville, TN USA - Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 16:11:45 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

If you are correct and God determines everything, including all of our actions and intentions, then the notion of salvation is not only useless but incoherent. Without free will, no one can make choices. Without choice, no one can choose (or reject) God because God has already made that choice for them. Do you really believe that God would create millions of people with no hope of salvation in order to toss them into Hell for all of eternity? A child who nurses a stray dog back to health has more moral decency that your concept of God. I urge you to rethink your position.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/

beyond great,beyond fantastic, a place of well put thoughts and ideals... guess what i was at miningco.com and just messing around at the agnostic chat and there it was put humanism heard of it but never read anything on it so BLAM i head over here and i greeted with a unloading of info and FACTS which are above else to me important.anyway i am bringing ever one i know over soon hey let me know of any knew changes althought i am still reading though a couple know and not quite down....oh by the by i am taoist by nature of gaining info and not liking the way indotrinate churchs are so hey why am i telling you about my belifs damn i must be way bord here,i will give one guess at where i am, thats right at WORK where i should be working but,ah damn i doingit again i am out of here.

terrin truthseeker < gaiatatsu@collegeclub.com>
riverside, ca USA - Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 15:46:49 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

Thanks for such an insightful web page. What I have a problem with in Luke and Matthew is the birth origin of
Jesus, and the problem evolves here:

1. Matthew states that Joseph is not the father of Jesus. The blood line of Jospeh is traced to Abraham and David.

2. Matthew states that Jesus was conveived via God/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost

3. Luke states that Joseph is the supposed father of Jesus, but we have a different blood line from Matthew. I suppose it is that of Mary.

4. Luke traces the blood line of Mary(?) to Adam, David, and God.

5. Luke states that Jesus was conceived by God.

The problem arises with the origin of Jesus in the gospel becomes thus: If Joseph is not the father of Jesus, then Jesus must be the child of another man or God.

A. If Jesus is the child of another man and Mary is the mother, Jesus could not have been conceived by God and is thus not devine and Mary was not a virgin,

B. If Mary is the mother (she shares her DNA) of Jesus and God is the father, Jesus is part human, and Mary is also a virgin

C. If the mother of Jesus is not Mary and God is the mother/father then Jesus is not human (in this case the womb of Mary was used for storage of Jesus by God for 9 months but Jesus did not share her DNA), and Mary is also a virgin.

Any answer to these questions, paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas and you may open unexpected questions about Jesus in terms of creation myth, divinity, prophecy, kingship, rights of blood line etc. Luke observes or infers that all humans can be traced to God via Adam (including Jesus, Jacob, and Abraham). That makes humans one family, but does that infernece make us humans also devine (or half devine) since we
all came from God?!

Robert W. Jones <bmw4u@hotmail.com>
Novato, CA USA - Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 14:11:45 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paranormal/

About the article on Conspiracy Theory or whatever. The advice sounds good but is not. A better way is to bone up on the rhetorical forms of the ploys, used, work out the tools of statecraft. It started, originally, long ago, as means used to give a tribe cohesion by calling themselves the elected and further nonsense, together with hating enemies and strangers. The rot set in when the god kings arrogated the god's powers unto themselves, which started power games going. My advice is that no-one who knows how it works can be fooled by their nonsense, the last word used to avoid a typical expletive.

Adrian van der Meijden <afme@ihug.co.nz >
New Zealand - Wednesday, January 20, 1999 at 10:52:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I just transferred to the University of Washington from a junior college. I was shocked that of the 450-odd clubs, including 52 religious clubs, there is no one single secular humanist/athiest/etc... sort of orginization! I was hoping that you could possibly connect me with some people in the area that could help me establish an orginization. thank you!

Anthony Penta < mrnoital@u.washington.edu>
Seattle, Wa USA - Tuesday, January 19, 1999 at 20:39:24 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/

Dear Mr. Morgan,

I just wanted to write you a quick note to thank you for all of the obvious work you've put into your articles and lists. They're invaluable as references for me. It really is a silly book, isn't it?

Les Milton <lmilton@earthlink.net >
Pacifica, CA USA - Tuesday, January 19, 1999 at 17:21:50 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap22.html

You talk about many sons of God coming and being born of a virgin and dieding on a cross to save the sins of the world. Jesus is the only one I know that still heals and sets people free from sins. These stories of these other saviors are just lies and the dates are lies too.

Pamela Felix <Pamela6497>
Tulsa, ok USA - Sunday, January 17, 1999 at 22:52:43 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethinker.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/

Just passing through your very nice web site.

Steven Bayne <srbayne@channel1.com >
Somerville, MA USA - Sunday, January 17, 1999 at 10:54:25 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html

Your comments on the scripture seem to be without undestanding. It is obvios that a non-believer cannot understand the meaning of the scriptures therefore cannot argue what he does not understand. Seek ye first this knowledge and the rest will be added unto you.

rob noble <rob@net66.com>
ELLIOTT, Il. USA - Saturday, January 16, 1999 at 12:44:51 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html

I would like to comment on the spermatozoon combining with a cell to eventually form a human being. In order for that to happen you would eventually need building block molocules such as amino acids. If evolution did occur, those molocules wouldn't be present in the early earth, due to the fact that there would also be an absence of oxygen. The lack of oxygen means no ozone layer. No ozone layer means heavy ultra-voilet light coming into the atmosphere from the sun. Heavy ultra-violet light means no amino acids. The U.V. rays would instantaneously devour any and all building-block molocules, thus making it impossible for the combining of a spermatozoon and a cell.

Hypathetically speaking, let's say that given enough time, this could happen completely by chance. Those odds are equivalent to those of flipping a coin 100,000,000 times and getting heads every time. Quite unlikely. I'd be happy to discuss this further if you'd like.

Amy Palmer <amyp128659@aol.com >
Anaheim, ca USA - Friday, January 15, 1999 at 13:01:17 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Clarence Darrow was talking about the growth of an embryo, not the origin of life. (A spermatozoon is a sperm cell.) Abiogenesis may have occurred in hydrothermal vents under the ocean, which would have been shielded from ultraviolet light.

Rich Daniel

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I found your "views" on atheism how do you say ... faulted. Being a student in an apologetics class, your "evidence" is very weak. You wrote about everything depending on something ... could this not only be applied to an intelligent being who created us? Please don't be offended, I was just curious.

VCHS <www.bcs.com>
Cerritos, CA USA - Friday, January 15, 1999 at 12:50:46 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1999/january.html

Reference: Number of the Beast, Internet Infidels Newsletter, November, 1998.

Propose the following for addition to the list: ISO 666 - Management Standard of the Beast

Hugh A. Wiesman < hwiesman@nml10.med.navy.mil>
Chambersburg, PA USA - Friday, January 15, 1999 at 12:24:08 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/arl_bauer_pres_bid.html

Gary Bauer is a dangerous man to elect president. He will rob Americans of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the Unites States of America. As President, he would destroy the civil rights of non-Christians.

Matt Drabek <pippen_30@hotmail.com >
Pekin, IN USA - Thursday, January 14, 1999 at 16:14:57 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/sci.html

The intent of this response is not to "blast any long-dead authors" but rather whoever chose the content of your historical documents site. I note, with much dismay, that a majority of your articles are by Albert Einstein. Since when is Mr. Einstein a theologian or philosopher of any merit? No reasable person would find C.S. Lewis' discourses on quantum physics of any real value(If he had any such works.) Nor would any reasonable person quote Nietchze in support of their biology thesis. Why then do you assume that theology is to be approached which such a light-heartedness that everyone's conclusions are equally valid? Or are you just appealing to the closed-mindedness of your "freethinking" audience who apparently buys everything that the great Mr Einstein says lock, stock and barrel? I urge you not to be so "freethinking" that your brain flies away.... I do, however, appreciate your efforts to increase the availability of secular works to TRUE freethinkers, theists and atheists alike....

James Wolbach-Smith <jiwsmith@holly.colostate.edu>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Wednesday, January 13, 1999 at 18:25:53 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

We all know that some words have enormous power. During the red scare of the 40s, 50s, and well into the 60s, the word "communist" sent Washington politicians running for cover and doomed talented writers to a blacklist that prevented them from working. On the Secular Web, the word "freethinker" has empowered nonbelievers and aggravated theists to no end. It is also frequently misunderstood. Freethinking is not censoring ideas, unilaterally deciding their validity, or dictating who can deliver them. To be a freethinker is to detach oneself from restrictive dogma in order to possess the freedom to arrive at conclusions that do not necessarily conform to religious teaching. This freedom frightens many believers who see it as being out of control, "so 'freethinking' that your brain flies away" as James puts it above. Of course, since the freethinker's intellectual domain ranges far beyond the tiny area within which the believer confines himself, it is no wonder that those distant lands beyond the horizon frighten and confuse the dogmatic believer. As freethinkers who roam those distant lands, our job is to be patient and to realize that at first new ideas frighten people until they have had a chance to understand and to digest them. The gate is unlocked James! We can guide you to those wonderful lands of new ideas but you must first push open the gate and step outside.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/january.html

I admire the work you have put into your website, and most of all I admire the intelligence in which you respond to other people's feedback. Though I have been an atheist most of my life (as much as I can remember), I have always had a great interest in the logic of other religions (I know that is kind of an oxymoronic statement). What are your ideas regarding the Church of Satan, and other "atheistic religions".

Tony Nocchi < tonynocchi@earthlink.net>
Myrtle Point, OR USA - Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 23:44:33 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.atheism.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

While I find things I can agree with in this piece there a some that need explanation. I don't have much confidence in the reliability of much that is in the New Testament, but having said that it seems to have been demonstrated too many times to be coincidence that many Christian organizations lead the way in serving their fellow man, e.g. the Salvation Army, Christian groups that do work with needy childred in 3rd world countries, the Mennonite Relief programs carried out by devoted volunteer workers. Also I have seen lives dramatically changed for the better, one being one of my daughters. It is this one aspect of Christianity that I find difficult to explain. Rather than offer you my ideas, I should like to hear yours, if you are willing to give them.

J. Stanley Wilkinson < jbsw@bc.sympatico.ca>
Chilliwack, BC Canada - Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 21:46:25 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/indulgences-cont.html

Intelligent Catholics may be cringing in embarrassment at the antics of the present Pope--I would have been mortified years ago--but they're not doing it because he announced a few indulgences. Contrary to the apparent misconceptions of every non-Catholic on the web, indulgences were not abolished around the time of the Reformation. They weren't abolished at all. When I was in high school, every prayer book contained a set of "devotions" with indulgences attached--either plenary (all temporal punishment due to sin) or partial (a specified number of days off your time in purgatory).

To earn them you had to do a First Saturdays devotion, for instance, where you went to confession and received communion and recited a third part of the rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. There were other indulgences for other devotions, for the Stations of the Cross, for novenas, for whatever.

But indulgences have been alive and well in an unbroken tradition at least since the start of the LAST millenium.

All this Pope did was announce a few more opportunities for earning them, which every Pope has had the right to do--and every Pope has done, including John XXIII and Paul VI--in an unbroken line, right down to the present day.

Jane Haddam <JaneHad@aol.com>
Watertown, CT USA - Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 18:05:38 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I tried to search for "meaning of life" and "purpose of life" in your site but I got none. I just wonder if you have some views regarding these things.

Jerry Pescadero < iceberg_jp@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, January 11, 1999 at 23:25:44 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Life has as much or as little meaning as each of us choose to give it. In that respect we Infidels have no more a monopoly on the activities that add meaning to life than anyone else. Personally, I find cooking for family and friends to be both relaxing and life-enriching. Also, Verdi's La Traviata is as close to heaven as this atheist will ever get. Other things that make my life meaningful are trips to the bookstore, walking the park blocks near my home, discussing philosophy with my wife, writing, reading, learning yoga, doing without an automobile and going to the supermarket on bicycle, watching old movies, looking at the stars at night, doing something new, and of course, volunteering on the Secular Web. I suspect Jerry that you already know what is meaningful in your life too. Stop searching "out there" for it and start appreciating the simple things in life that are right before you. 

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I would just like to say that this website is the most important one on the web as of right now. I and my drougies are starting a Political Party based on Atheist principals, we believe in the sanctity of the human soul and the fact that all other religeons are teaching people not to be induviduals but in fact in the bible they refer to followers as sheep. INDIVIDUALISM is the only way to complete fulfillment, would you agree.

If you have any questions about the Canadian Secular Party feel free to email me at any time. Also there will be a website coming soon at http://www.imag.net/~collinm

Collin MacMillan <collinm@imag.net>
Canada - Monday, January 11, 1999 at 22:39:23 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/indulgences-cont.html

Your feature on indulgences contains several errors which cannot be justified, either by its satirical nature or the well-meaning enthusiasm of the author. mathew is mistaken in implying that the practice of granting indulgences had been abandoned. Rather than temporarily reviving them, the Pope has issued a special indulgence for the jubilee year, as is the usual practice. An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment for a sin which has been forgiven, as such it cannot be applied to sins yet to be committed.

I think mathew's confusion lies in that he thought an indulgence was an atonement for sin *in advance of the sin*, when in fact it is more an atonement for past sin in advance of the atonement which is due.

mathew's initial explanation of how indulgences may be gained is partly accurate: one must perform the act attached to that indulgence in a contrite spirit. To perform the act insincerely would be ineffectual. As mathew says: an indulgence is not magic.

It is unlikely that the Pope's jubilee indulgence will cause Catholics to question the Church, or drive Lutherans from dialogue, unless they heed such erroneous commentary as this. As the parties involved have always been aware of the Church's actual teaching the jubilee indulgence will not come as a shock.

I am unsure why mathew sees a potential breakdown in dialogue as a positive thing. Surely everyone should prefer open communication and friendship to distrust and ignorance. His opinion seems to be motivated more by rancour than reason.

It is in the interest of free and open communication that care should be taken to accurately express the ideas of others. There is a place for criticism, and satire, but if these are based on false or misleading conceptions they lose their value as arguments and sink to the level of propaganda.

The spread of false information is in noone's interest. At that level ignorance and, indeed, deception are the outcome, not enlightenment. An organization dedicated to the ideals of reason should be careful with the arguments it presents, that they do not work contrary to the values that it proclaims.

Stephen Wilson < estragon1@hotmail.com>
USA - Sunday, January 10, 1999 at 20:09:43 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Reply:

I was in fact fully aware that indulgences had never formally been removed from Catholic doctrine, and did not intend to imply otherwise. I'm sorry if the wording was misleading in that respect.

 mathew

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethinker.org/new.html

Your website is sickening and ridiculously full of non-sense!! I suggest getting rid of this crap, and make a different more usefull website that doesn't manipulate people to thinking and believing in this trash!! I will do any and everthing I can to get this site outta here, and I AM SERIOUS.....

Kel Kaufman <rpkkad@ptinet.net>
Kalispell , MT USA - Sunday, January 10, 1999 at 18:48:48 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html

i have recently had problems getting people to leave me alone about being atheist. your site seems like it will help me alot. i'll let you know. also i would like some info on how i could find atheist-type symbols on the net. like the cross is to christians and the star to jews. what do we atheists have? if any. i suppose we dont need one but it would be interesting to know what one looked like..

andy <chuckypow@hotmail.com >
cary, nc USA - Saturday, January 09, 1999 at 23:10:32 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidel.org/activist/current/wire/stories/gods_own_zipcode.html

Christopher Ott's article about Focus on the Family was a very bad article. I think that James Dobson is doing a good job and it is plain that you are not concerned with trying to serve God. If you were you would not be deceived and so critical. What are you so worried about?

Randy Gray <randygray@hotmail.com >
Columbus, ms USA - Saturday, January 09, 1999 at 13:16:42 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html

Memory, prophesy, fantasy,...
The past, the future, and the dreaming moment between........

Are all in one country,...
Living one immortal day.

To know this is Wisdom....
To use it the Art.
Zyem Carasophia

Giordano Bruno like Jesus of Nazareth, is another string in the weave of human history and reality. Nothing, has any meaning or value except the meaning and value we say and agree it has.

There is a group of people in the "boot shaped" part of the so-called continent of Europe, that is refered to by the people there as "Italia",....and the people there refer to themselves as, of all things..."Italians". From a purely childish decorum of group-culture, we as sentient entity's need to get past some of this "bull-shit" of our so-called "learned" fore-fathers. Much of the mis-conceived, poorly catagorized distinctions, ...no--longer--works! Of course these are only words supported by my beliefs, which frankly having said this.... is more honest than all the religious babble and bull-shit on the planet, combined.

Or is that just another misdirected belief?

Thank you.

Garwin Redman <garwin1@juno.com>
Spring Valley, CA USA - Saturday, January 09, 1999 at 10:47:12 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/

I was hoping or wondering if anyone has ever counted acts of violence in the bible, you know like when the critics counted how many times a Bugs Bunny cartoon had acts of violence. I thought this would be a great reference, perhaps this could be compared to a number of "good acts" in the bible.

Gary Lyons <Jedi@island.net>
Campbell River, BC Canada - Friday, January 08, 1999 at 13:09:01 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

As immature as this may sound while God is punishing you and BBQ'in you in hellfire, I'll be laughin
my head off. Not that anyone will escape the fires of hell as the Koran says. Anyway, I think you're a doody head and the Atheism is foolishness. But explain this to me, why is it that the Zoroastrianism [ in its original
form ], Hinduism [ in its original form ], Buddhism [ in its original form, kinda repititive, ain't it? ], Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have so much in common, have the same basis of beliefs, and believe in ONE God?? Is that not a sign of God's work? Were men like David [aka Dawud ], Solomon [aka Sulayman], Jesus [aka. Esau aka Isa ], Abraham [aka Ibrahim ], and Muhammad insane?!? All men seperated by so much time
and space, and yet all believed in God ... Let us not forget, there is no sense to morality if there is no God. There is no such thing as "good" and "evil" if there is no God. But what is the point trying to explain to you? For there has been a screen pulled over your heart and eyes ....

Btw, I saw those stupid articles you had up on your site. If everyone adhered to their religion, this world would be a close to perfect place. You secularists and athiests have given up religion in govt, have given up God, and taken up an idol, an idol called quality of life.

p a r a d o x < junoon@bellatlantic.net>
USA - Friday, January 08, 1999 at 11:31:00 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Satan might be laughing at you too, I think. He might get a good chuckle over you not realizing how alike you two are. Christianity worships three gods, not one. Judaism has one god who is greater than all other gods. And their "basis of beliefs" are hardly the same, try telling a Fundamentalist Christian that there is only one god and His name is Allah, and Mohammed was his only Prophet. I have never understood how the need for morality mandates the existance of God.

Blaine Armsterd

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/

I love the site, but I'd like to see other avenues refuting the "Argument From Design." Recent discoveries in cosmology and cognative science have refuted every aspect of A Creator God completely. How the origins of life came about has been clearly on the secular side for everyone but the most fanatical of theists so there is no longer a need to rehash it. But books such as "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker, "The Minds Eye" by Douglas Hofstadter, and I'm sure many others have very detailed accounts of how the sense of "self" comes about from a "software" view of the human mind. Also, books such as "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth, and articles by Steven Hawking and others about the beginnings of our universe tell a story about how matter itself was created and how the Big Bang Model has been modified recently. There is simply no longer a place for a Creator God to run.

Mike Magee <mmagee@california.com >
San Luis Obispo, CA USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 19:07:06 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html

As an ex-Christian Scientist I have a little expertise in the dogma. This article pretty much gets everything right, but we did use thermometers and back rubs et.al.. I feel kinda funny defending CS as I now know it to be a totally wacky religion that actually harms people, but I also want all the facts straight in order that the article and others like it have more credibility. CS also does not prevent members from seeking medical attention, it's more or less a peer-pressure atmosphere. As a child I recall visiting the doctor occassionally. It's also ironic to note that Mrs. Eddy specifically states that setting bones, after a break, by a medical physician is okay. I'm curious that not more people have picked up on this total flip flop.

Kyle Marsh < kyle.marsh@dover.af.mil>
Dover, DE USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 10:14:47 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I'm a skeptic. Not that I think knowledge is altogether impossible, but that certainty is hard to attain. I observe that the arguments of atheists are just as unconvincing as those of the theists. Do you have a proof of the nonexistence of god? I strongly agree that institutionalized religions are unnecessary, even counterproductive, in the study and pursuit of morality. The question of the existence of god might not make any significant difference just as the question of whether there is alien lifeform. But to arrive at a convincing answer would satisfy an intellectual curiousity. Truth is an end in itself; it does not matter whether it serves a practical purpose or not. (Pascal's wager is a sign of cowardice born out of a teleological valuation of truth.)

Jerry Pescadero < jerry.pescadero@usa.net>
Cebu, Philippines - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 02:22:03 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/shepard.html

I'm 14 and I think that this thing that happened to Matthew Shepard was really bad. I don't know any gay people, but if I did I wouldn't jugde them cause of it. I think everyone that has a good aditude and treats other people equal is the same, weather black, white, gay, or whatever. It shouldn't matter and if it matters to you then you shouldn't be treated equal. I like the golden rule, Treat others as you would like to be treated. It aplies to life more than some people think. I would never have really cared about this subject if it I wasn't watching the news when they talked about Matthew. I heard about it and almost started crying. I didn't even know the guy, but I thought it was horrible! In my Soc. Studies class we're doing reports on some kind of discrimination (sorry if that's spelled wrong) from the news. I had an article in my room, on the wall, about Matthew so i decited to do my report on him. I just had to say that. For the family and friends of Matthew Shepard, I hope they understand that he's still watching them and I hope justice is served. Thank you and Good bye.

Jen mills <Catzmills>
Lomabard, IL USA - Wednesday, January 06, 1999 at 17:43:15 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap34.html

May Jesus Christ have Mercy on your souls. He loves you, is that what you have such a hard time believing?

Ginger Street <heluvsevnu@aol.com >
Austintown, Oh USA - Wednesday, January 06, 1999 at 10:48:56 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

What I have a hard time believing is how the slogan "God is love" is thoughtlessly mouthed in one moment and quickly turned into a blunt instrument with which to beat nonbelievers over the head the next. In the name of God's love, bloody massacres and ethnic cleansing have taken place throughout the centuries. Take a look at many of the letters on this feedback page Ginger to see Christ's love at work in your fellow Christians' lives. Thanks, but no thanks. There is a better way.

James Still

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/ring/freethought/

I appreciated the thoughtfulness and extensive treatment of some of the issues raised. Obviously the author is very thoughtful, reflective, and well read in the areas of athiesm. Much of what I saw however did not address central issues of Christianity with much effectiveness. Even though the author acknoledged there are different strands of Christianity, much of what I saw was a reaction to strong forms of American Fundamentalism. This seems to be setting up a straw man that is easy to knock over and misses crucial and central claims of Christianity which must be dealt with. There was some distinction made, for instance belief in the virgin birth as opposed to belief in God; to be a Christin one must necessarily believe in the latter, while the former is open to debate. But by and large, the "defense of athiesm" that involved striking at the roots of Christianity seemed to me to miss the roots altogether.

Here is an example. The author's discussion of the contradictions in the bible basically counters a fundamentalistic understanding of the bible which is not representative of orthodox faith, and I believe harmful to Christianity in the long run. It is bibliolatry in the worst cases. This dealing with contradictions in the bible as somehow giving the bible credibilty problems totally misses the nature of Christian scripture and revelation. I cannot expound on a good, theological understanding of Christian scripture or canon here, but let me direct the author to NT scholar Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament for a much clearer and Christian understanding of the bible. He is recognized in excellence of scholarship and thouroughness even by Jewish rabbis and teachers. THe bible is not the Koran. It is not dictated word for word by God. It is a theological interpretation of history which Christians believe God uses to speak to people today about his self revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. If there is a contradiction in actual events which are recorded that has little relevance for disbelief because each gospel or account is reflective of the theological message which is shaping the historical account given.

Here is my biggest concern about the author's approach. In his rather lengthy list of the various contradictions in the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, not once did he address the central claim of the resurrection and its possibility or plausibility. He chose to nit pick the contradictions in the accounts and failed to miss the unified claim of the resurrection. This is like standing at the foot of the National Monument and noticing all the pock marks and imperfections in the stone without stepping back and seeing the grandure of the finished product. He did adress the issue of the historicity of Jesus in another place, rather implausibly I believe, and so I suppose if you outright deny that Jesus was ever a real person then you would have no reason deal with the resurrection. But his argument for Jesus as a mythological creation seemed strained. We could just as well argue that for many of the historical figures we take for granted. To argue that Jesus did not exist because there were other mythical creations similar to him during and previous to his day is not a convincing arguement alone, and furthermore, there is not that extensive prehistory of figues similar to Jesus as the author would like to believe.

Now it may very well be that after addressing thoughtfully the resurrection of Jesus, one still finds it implausible. That has happened. I find the evidence convincing, at least possible. We cannot have 100% positive belief about anything historical. That is a misconception of faith and belief. Historical arguments lie in the realms of possiblitiy and probablitiy. And I believe God speaks to us when we face questions, sometimes his non-answer is how he speaks, but that is a bit afield from my response. There are some people who try to peal back the layers of the bible to get to the so called "Historical Jesus." Curiously these Historical Jesus scholars inevitably end up with a profile of Jesus that reflects thier own beliefs. That is why among Jesus scholars, there are so many different "Jesuses". They all seem to interpet Jesus differently, often contradictory. Christianity is not unified in its interpretation of Jesus either, but orthodox Chiristianity affirms a few things about Jesus, like his resurrection and vindication by God as pretty consistent throughout Christendom today and the ecuminical church of the last 2000 years.

So, to the author I say, "Address the plausibility of the resurrection, get a proper understanding of the Christian scriptures, and then make an informed choice." Of course there are other issues, like Athiesm vs. Theism and these are important issues. I suppose if one wants to make them primary one could. That is what the author does. But Christiainity does not make a primary claim on the belief in God, neither does Judaism for that matter. Gen. 1 begins "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth..." There is no argument for theism. It is assumed. That is because as the author rightly point out, God's existence cannot be proved. The author believes that there are good reasons for disbelieving God's existence. There may be. But within that arguement there needs to be a discussion of the central claim of Christianity, not that God exists, but that he was present in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who was raised from the dead and now lives and reigns with God inviting all people into a new life where we are molded and shaped to be the people that God created us to be. Of course, to be able to objectively look at the plausibility of the resurrection, one must be at least entertain the idea of its possiblity, and that would entail an openess to the possibility of God's existence. If there is absolutely no belief in the possibility of God's existence, the inquiry is stunted at the outset and rather onesided, because disallowing the evidence for the resurrection would not even be included in the discussion. My fear is that the author or others simply disallow this line of inquiry because of a previous denial of God's existence. As I said, that is less than honest and does not allow all of the evidence for God's existence to surface, not to convince 100%, but to make belief in God possible or even plausible.

I hesitate to offer one more suggestion for reading, but since on the Freethought crossroads there were so many suggestions for further reading, I feel I am justified. Probably the most outstanding theologian today is Wolfhart Pannenberg. His magnum opus has been translated into English over the last few years. It is called "Systematic Theology" and is in three volumes. He knows philosophy and historical philosophy better than most philosophers I do not hesitate to say. His first volume begins by his outline of how to do theology, particularly Christian Theology. He starts from the ground up. In other words, his theology does not begin with Dogma but philosophy and history. It is very difficult reading because he covers every possible question, philospher, method. As far as orientation, he is orthodox, but not fundamentalistic. For him, belief in Christiainity rests on the resurrection, not the virgin birth which he denies historically on other grounds. Here again, the virgin birth is theological not historical. Throughout the three volumes he really adresses the questions of epistemology and the finite and infiinite. It has been said to be a devestating critique of athiesm. That would be left up to the reader to decide. But let the author of the web page not set up straw men. Deal with the deeper questions of belief and faith and content of the Christian message and leave the superficial ones to the fundamentalists.

One other comment. No, two. The plausiblilty of Christiainity or any other worldview must address the issue: Does it best explain the world as we experience it? That is a challenge Christiainity can meet.

The second is the criticism of Christiainity based on people and hypocricy. The author was quite right in holding Christiainity to a higher standard because of what it claims morally. But he fails to point out all the good that Christianity has done and that individual Christiains have done. I find it interesting that people so quickly dismiss Christiainity's positive influence but so quickly expose the negative. We need to own up to the negative, but the world, societies, structures, individuals are all too intertwined and complex to only draw out the negatives and neglect the huge positive Christian influence on the world. The cardinal liberal virtue of tolerance for instance flourishes in our culture in large degree to Christian teaching and practice. Because some fundamentalists frightenly are intolerant does not deny the existence of its origens. Cultures throughout the world and history are and were intolerant. One could argue that it is through a long denial or lack of shaping by the cardinal Christian virtues which inevitably trickle down through a given society that leave cultures violent and destructive; vitues like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. (Galatians 5. ) So lets be realistic, honest and fair. Christianity is not responsible for all the ill of the world and despite is negative impact, it has been a force for good and truth throught is 2000 year history.

Please get this into the hands of the Freethought Crossroads Web page author and if he would like to respond to my comment that would be fine.

Martin Adamson <Adamson89@juno.com >
Pastor of the Bellevue Free Methodist Church
Bellevue, NE USA - Tuesday, January 05, 1999 at 12:50:57 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html#ii-news

I wonder if you are familiar with the Association for Secular Humanistic Judaism with centres in Jerusalem and the USA. This is an organisation that arose out of the need to cope with Jewish fundamentalism, which not surprisingly is flourishing in Israel and the USA.

Jewish fundamentalists say that as democracy and liberalism are not mentioned in the Bible - they are wrong. I beg to differ as I want my country, Israel, to continue to be a free democracy with freedom of thought.Which is why I find myself close to the position of the Jewish secular humanists.

Unfortunately my home town of Jerusalem, regarded as a Holy City by millions of Christians, Moslems and Jews, provokes great passions, leading often to insanity. I have had the "pleasure" of having had stones thrown at me on different occasions by Moslems and Jews ( I am Jewish myself), and tonight's TV report tells of Christian fanatics here who want to commit mass suicide hoping this will somehow bring Jesus back to life. Our medical facilities are familiar with the "Jerusalem Syndrome" suffered by lunatic pilgrims of all sorts.Who needs them?

QED religion has been a curse for Jerusalem. Any comment????

David Zohar < zohar@main.aquanet.co.il>
Jerusalem, Israel - Tuesday, January 05, 1999 at 11:15:24 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/

I highly, stongly recommend a book titled Atheism, The Case Against God by George H. Smith.

Geoffrey Erikson <Eriksongs@aol.com >
Concord, CA USA - Tuesday, January 05, 1999 at 09:34:57 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.freethinkers.org/infidels/feedback/

I have looked over quickly so far you list of inconsistencies, I would say 75% are from misunderstanding and not reading the whole verse. For example, when Jesus turns things to wine and such, but you say in Romans it says not to drink wine, you forget that in that section of Romans, they are speaking of not drinking wine in front of you brothers in Christ, because that could make them stumble. For example, someone is a recovering alcoholic, and drinking a beer in front of them is not going to help them recover.Very simple concept. The Bible does not have the inconsistencies, but rather it is your posts that are inconsistent and not clear.

Josh Susen <josh@agate.net>
Lincoln, Me USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 23:40:13 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/paine-books.html

Very impressed with your site! Please don't become another Anti-mason site. There is enough of that from the so-called Fundamentalist Christian sites. Freemasons do believe in a supreme power but emphasize free thought and I'm sure your site can appreciate that!!

Vernon Scott <vscott179@aol.com>
Montgomery, Al USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 19:55:52 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/book-of-the-month/1999.html#january

I just wanted to say I really enjoy this website and it helps me defend my newfound atheism and freethinking ways to a very Christianized area that I happen to live in. People around here think you're nuts if you don't believe in God...yet, I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, with thoughts of Jesus in the sky and hellfires consuming those "infidels" dancing in my head. But when I started researching and using critical thinking, and depending on reason instead of blind faith, I came to the conclusion that the crutch of Christianity was not going to cure any limp I have in my personal life. Instead, the thought that I am a member of a growing, intelligent, and extremely interesting species is enough for me. But enough of that, I just wanted to say that your website basically changed my life for the better, and I thank you all for that.

And there are some really great things on the Secular Web, too. You have my admiration and full respect.

Steve Witek <tosser4@hotmail.com >
Livermore, ME USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 18:21:08 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/related/

I caught your website on " The Jury Is In: The Ruling On McDowell's "Evidence" while trying to find McDowell's email address. The work is thorough and well written. I read some of the feedback and I would have to agree that there is some "circular logic" on certain points. Otherwise, keep up the good work and most of all keep the right attitude toward fundamentalist.

I have a nine year history in "reformed Christian theology" and one of the points that turned my life upside down -- for the better I might add -- is the missing seventeen years of Jesus' life! Authors such as Holger Kersten and Elizabeth Clare Prophet have written intriguiging books on this often neglected yet paramount anamoly! Why is this point rarely brought up to Christian apologists who argue the Bible's infallibility? Especially, when "other" accounts of Jesus' life and teachings during those missing years exist?

Dwain Miller <jmille56@csc.com>
Dallas, TX USA - Monday, January 04, 1999 at 00:28:59 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/december.html

This is in response to Judith Hayes December column of the Happy Heretic. It is a nice thought to imagine a world free of war and intolerance. And it is true that humans, like most animals, have survival intincts. But I would like to point out that humans are also territorial animals. If there was no religion, we would (and DO) fight over something else (witness the detruction we are causing in Iraq - this is not religious). Also the holocaust was not a war on religion, but on race. And slavery existed BEFORE Americans claimed God condoned it...God was merely an excuse. And one more thing - tolerance exists with religion. TOLERANCE would help bring peace, not LACK OF religion.

Alexandra Rosvall < liliths_daughter@hotmail.com>
Olympia, WA USA - Sunday, January 03, 1999 at 23:00:22 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/judith_hayes/happy_heretic/1998/december.html

If your site is truly about freedom and tolerance then why don't I see any articles by the Christian apologists who can systematically dismantle many of these ideas and arguments made by these athiests, humanists, etc?

Brandon Dalby <bdalby@ime.net>
Portland, ME USA - Sunday, January 03, 1999 at 20:18:21 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

Jeffery Jay Lowder

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/

hi, great site! Anyway I was thinking that it would be wonderful if you had an area on your page that had free atheist graphics so people could put it on their own websites. Thanks for a great website!

Courtney < Dream24@Worldnet.att.net>
Hyde Park, NY USA - Sunday, January 03, 1999 at 19:26:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1999/january.html

I have yet to really tap the content of "the secular web"...just got here as it were and am very excited to have located such a body. I was impressed with the book selection both in the opening AND in the "young readers" section! I had the impression of a solid loving open mind behind it all. The humorous? (to some one) reference to superstition on the opening page of the newsletter seems to be some sort of sad apology for being human; saying....we are not that different..see!....I am compelled and motivated to pass along my ego-filled knowledge of superstition and put them down. This is the OPENING page....the first time someone might have happened onto this would-be breath of fresh air in someones life where they have trouble finding where they fit in.

My daughter used to go to a "church of the nazarene" school here in hawaii. I got a Tin-tin in Tibet t-shirt for Jazmine (my daughter)when I went to a lecture by the Dalai lama here. When Jaz wore the t-shirt to school the principal (a nice mine but a little scarred and unsure) felt compelled to tell Jaz about how tibetans had put christian missionaries out in the desert sun wrapped in wet skins..when the skins dried.... I was dissappointed. If christian would only hold christ up high and say why he belongs there in their mind and hearts rather than spreading rumors and casting fears about everything BUT christ she might still be at the school. It is the same dissappointment that I read the petty superstition comment...unless-forbit that the person is serious. If not then it seems to me that, under the circumstances, the reference is innappropriate. It sort of was a cold wind in the flush of discovery for me. I WILL read on but my hopes were a little diminished. Love, and with gratitude........

Phil Henderson <philh@hialoha.net >
Hilo, HI USA - Sunday, January 03, 1999 at 08:49:50 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/htdig/search.html

I think that what you posted on the website is ignorant and stupid. You Know that Christianity is the truth and you're afraid of that fact. I pray for you and I know that you will come to see the light, and I pray that it will be the light of heaven and not of hell.

David Schmidt <Xpistianos@aol.com >
Aurora, CO USA - Saturday, January 02, 1999 at 23:51:22 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2examp93.html

One day you will see that prophecy is indeed the hand of God and I pray that you will wake up before it is too late.

Rev. Alvin Thrift <laeoma@webtv.net >
waycross, Georgia USA - Saturday, January 02, 1999 at 21:37:04 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.secular.org/library/historical/william_floyd/mistakes_of_jesus.html

Every day I thank God for person's of your knowledege and faith. I'm am sorry someone has wronged you so much that you feel you can only critize the Christian faith and Jesus Christ or Lord. The only thing you are granting your self is eternal damnation.

Terry Minas <thuggmin@aol.com>
Aurora, CO USA - Saturday, January 02, 1999 at 10:25:19 (MST)

This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/

I hope your views change before judgment day. When Jesus comes down to take me home I hope I don't see you. It would hurt me so to sewe you having to go to the life of hell. I will pray for you to see the light of Jesus. As long as you are alive you have a chance to be saved and repent. Hurry and turn to God before it is too late and you have to live your life in eternal HELL!!!

Ruth <Rutmin@aol.com>
co USA - Saturday, January 02, 1999 at 09:27:41 (MST)

Internet Infidels' Response:

The astute reader will have noticed that Ruth's message, and the three previous messages from David Schmidt, Rev. Alvin Thrift, and Terry Minas, all have one theme in common: "wake up, see the light, or spend eternity in hell." (Actually, Ruth says, "live your life in eternal HELL"--although, I can't imagine what it means to live after one has died.) In any case, here we have four excellent examples of rampant superstition, which has taken hold of believers' lives and governs them through fear rather than love. The truly religious person is motivated entirely by the love of God rather than the morbid fear of hell. I have always been struck by something the great African-American writer James Baldwin wrote in his marvelous essay The Fire Next Time to explain his growing disenchantment with being a preacher in Harlem:

"I remember feeling dimly that there was a kind of blackmail in it [Christianity]. People, I felt, ought to love the Lord because they loved Him, and not because they were afraid of going to Hell."

Sadly, the "fire and brimstone" superstitious are motivated primarily, if not exclusively, by the fear of punishment rather than the love of God. They are like primitives who engage in a fresh round of bloodletting after a volcanic eruption in order to appease the gods. The irony, of course, is that they cannot see how depraved they have become and so project their torment upon infidels, whom they mistakenly believe share the same fears and superstitions as they do. Because they are themselves so worried about torment, they think that everyone must be, forgetting that we infidels have no conception of the eternal torment with which they incessantly haunt and tease each other. To all of you "accept Christ or go to hell" fearmongers I have one thing to say: we have long since moved beyond superstition. We nonbelievers are not controlled by fear, rather we are motivated by love, friendship, community, caring, the pursuit of wisdom, and intellectual advancement. When you are ready to free yourselves from the shackles of superstition you are always welcome to join us.

James Still

Feedback on Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life Debate

Thank you for the freethought pro-life argument by Christopher A. Stafford -- I've never seen anything like it before. However, as a freethinker, a rationalist, an atheist, and pro-choice (and a woman), I still wasn't convinced. Two major problems (in addition to those that Janet Brazill addressed) with Stafford's argument come to mind:

"From an evolutionary perspective, we are seriously hampering our ability to survive as a species. How can our species improve itself through our offspring if we kill our offspring before it is born? Survival of the fittest is not allowed to flourish when offspring is killed in the womb."

The human race, with more than 5 billion of us, is in no danger of dying out because of abortion. Furthermore, by Stafford's same "survival of the fittest" argument, we should not be treating, say, children with cancer and other fatal illnesses -- nature meant for them to die before reproducing and creating more desperately ill children. We also should not be allowing elderly people to extend their lives through artificial means -- they are beyond the peak reproductive years and are syphoning resources from the young. Actually, we should do away with all modern medicine -- after all, some less fit individuals survive when we give them penicillin. Will Stafford argue that we should let "post-born" ill people die and protect unborn clumps of cells in the name of strenghtening the gene pool? Why not?

"One can imagine a world in which several small, yet invaluable, contributions to society were never made because the people who made them were never born."

How many sonnets, operas, scientific theories, medicines, plays, novels, philosophies, paintings and so on, will never be discovered/written/created because those who would do so are spending their lives running around after children they never wanted? How many Beethovens, Shakespeares and Newtons has the world missed out on because women throughout history have been denied the right to develop their minds to their full
potential and use their bodies as they saw fit? Men can't control their own bodies, so historically they've tried, as a kind of compensation, to control women's. No more.

MaryAnn Johanson < mjohanson@earthlink.net>

§

It seems to me that the most common Pro-Life arguments against Pro-Choice are based largely on religion, which may often have issues with contraception, and even family planning in general. It may be that the "beliefs" that Pro-Lifers hold regarding these issues are only as open and likely to change as their religious "beliefs" are. I imagine a world where men and women are safely vaccinated at birth against pregnancy, and provided with an antidote to be able to have children when they decide, instead of the other way around. What a happy world it would be for every child to be wanted. Whatever arguments the church might have against that, they could not be any more entrenched in religious dogma than they are now.

Shannon Patterson <halleck@jaxco.com >

§

The big problem I had with the pro-choice/pro-life debate in the January II newsletter was that both sides covered the same old ground in the same old way. I can agree with about half of each side of the debate.

I suppose you could call me pro-life - I've always had a fundamental problem with legal definitions of humanity. From the DNA wrangling in the debate, I'm not the only one with this problem. But when it comes to determining who and who is not to be considered fully human, I tend to be conservative. Yes, I can sympathize with people who can't see a clump of cells as being human but I can also see the point of the pro-life advocates who don't see much distinction between a baby six hours before birth and one six hours after. So where do you draw the line?

Drawing the line is the mistake, to my thinking. Historically, any time the state has declared a group to be non-human, it has been a mistake. That's why alarms go off in my head whenever someone is ready to declare a fetus to be non-human. Dehumanizing is always a questionable tactic in government.

So I'm willing to give the unborn fetus the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the law. So I must be fully pro-life, right? Nope. The pro-choice advocate started to make a valid point when they pointed out that not all deaths are or should be unlawful. The examples they used were self-defense and a 'just' war. I would use these examples instead:

If you posit that a six week fetus, a six week old baby, a six year old child and a sixty year old man are all human in the eyes of the law, they should all be accorded the same right to life. But that right to life is not absolute.

A sixty year old dialysis patient might very well die without a kidney transplant, but his right to life does not extend to the government forcing an unwilling donor into an operating theater.

A six year old child will certainly die if he needs a bone marrow transplant from the only suitable donor, his father, if that father refuses to cooperate. The state does not and should not have the power to requisition a person's bone marrow even if it is his own son at risk, even if his only objection is that to donate would be an inconvenience. True, such a person is scum in my eyes, but his personal sovereignty outweighs that moral judgement on my part and, more important, outweighs even his son's right to life.

A six week old baby in desperate need of a blood transfusion, blood that can only be supplied by its mother has a right to life, but that right does not extend to the point of allowing the government to steal one drop of the mother's blood.

Anything less would be tantamount to slavery, our bodies and their resources being the property of the state, not ourselves.

Likewise, the six week old fetus might very well have a right to live, but that right does not extend to include the government decreeing that the fetus' need for its mother's body outweighs the personal sovereignty of the woman. The state has the power through due process to imprison her or to kill her, but under no circumstances does the state haave a right to decide how the resources of her body are to be used.

I am very much pro-life. If no abortion ever took place again, I would be glad. But I am not willing to lose the right of personal sovereignty to be rid of abortion.

Gilker Kimmel < Gilker@aol.com>

§

I am glad to see that a pro-life argument can be made without all the references to God, Jesus, Fire and Brimstone. I have always resented the association of pro-life with religious extremism. Stafford's article shows that one doesn't have to be a "bible thumper" to be pro-life.

The logic of Stafford's argument holds up against the pro-choice argument despite Janet Brazill's approach that the immorality of murder is not absolute and her support of the idea that a fetus or zygote lack 'personhood'. There can be no gray areas when establishing the rights of an individual, as unfair as it seems to women the only place a line can be drawn is at conception. One can ramble on all they want about neocortex-mediated complexity but the fact is, (1) It is alive; and (2) It is genetically human. It may be within our lifetime that a genetic map of a person, in the womb or outside it, can be provided routinely. A zygote may have no voice but it may soon have a face, with dark hair, brown eyes, Grandpas ears, Aunt Mary's chin and all.

I noticed that the opposing viewpoint presented by Janet Brazill was more of a direct critique of Stafford's article, quotes and all, and unless I missed it he did not have the opportunity for rebuttal. This seemed quite unfair, perhaps the editors non-endorsement disclaimer should be removed. There are plenty of arguments and clarifications for all of the points Brazill made against the pro-life argument Stafford made, but he is left hanging as if he were stumped and incapable of responding. The villainization of Stafford with phrases such as "Like many of the uninformed, Stafford implies that woman are irresponsible if they allow themselves to become pregnant." show quite clearly that Brazill is approaching this in a political manner rather than a logical one.

Name Withheld

§

If the "pro-life" protesters I have encountered in El Paso are typical of the movement nationwide, they would be more accurately described as"pro-birth". Their mantra seems to be, "Get them born!" and that is the end of it. One local anti-choice letter writer even proclaimed that protesters against abortion had no more responsibility than a firefighter who has rescued a person from a burning building. From her perspective, once the "rescue" was accomplished, nothing more need be done. I find that to be the ultimate in shortsightedness or downright hypocritical. Leaving a helpless infant to the not-so-tender mercies of a "parent[s]" who didn't want a child in the first place is the ultimate cruelty, but they don't seem capable of realizing that point. Better birth control and family planning options would cut back on the number of abortions performed. However, the anti-choice lobby leaps about in an emotional frenzy over fertilized eggs as having the right to develop to conception and on and on in a series of arguments that are based wholly on specific religious beliefs. I doubt that any progress will be made in reaching common ground until these religiously driven people realize that it is immoral to attempt to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them.

Annette L. Stone <astone@whc.net>

§

§

Since in her article Janet Brazill advocates birth as the point at which personhood is attained, one might ask whether her position is any more satisfactory than Stafford's. It soon becomes clear that it is not. Brazill points out, for example, that "a zygote, an embryo, an early fetus cannot breathe, cannot process or excrete food", hence that zygotes, embryos, and early foetuses are "totally different from an infant". True, these are differences. But Brazill does not even attempt to demonstrate that they are morally relevant differences — differences that would justify her claim that newborns are persons but that zygotes are not.

Brazill, quoting Michael Flower, claims to have "refuted" Stafford's position by pointing out that early foetuses do not have a "level of neocortex-mediated complexity sufficient to enable those sentient capacities the presence of which might lead us to predicate personhood of a sort we attribute to full-term newborns". There are two problems here. First, the capacity for sentience is not a necessary condition for personhood, since comatose patients do not have this capacity, yet are clearly persons. Thus the fact that the zygote, embryo or early foetus does not have the capacity for sentience does not entail that it is not a person. Second, if personhood can be predicated to newborns on the basis of certain sentient capacities, then personhood will also have to be predicated to most animals, since they also have these capacities. If Brazill wishes to specify sentience as a sufficient condition for personhood, then, since she does not hold that most animals are persons, she would have to specify biological humanity as a necessary condition for personhood. But that would make her definition of personhood just as arbitrary as Stafford's.

Again defending birth as the point at which personhood is attained, Brazill claims that "drawing the line of &lsquo;personhood' at any point" along the continuum from conception to birth "is strictly optional and requires value judgments". However, she says, there is one thing "on which society can fully agree", namely, "that the moment of birth represents an indisputable attainment of life and personhood". One might question whether societal consensus is really relevant to a moral issue such as this. But we need not even do that, since the contention is simply false: the moment of birth does not represent "an indisputable attainment of life and personhood". As I pointed out, various noted philosophers reject the moral significance of birth, and hold that infanticide is not, in itself, seriously wrong. Thus Brazill has simply failed to justify her position.

Brazill then asserts that "[t]he compromise in the Roe v. Wade decision remains the best overall solution for legal purposes, allowing interference by the state only after the point of viability, with the mother's life and health the prime consideration." But how is viability in any sense the "best overall solution"? How is viability either legally or morally relevant? Brazill does not bother to answer such questions, but merely asserts what she takes to be the case. It appears, then, that her position is just as arbitrary and devoid of justification as Stafford's.

Dean Stretton <dean@pcug.org.au>

§

I have significant disagreement with both parties to the debate. I agree that Stafford's "Infant Principle " appears reasonable (contrary to Brazill), however, that principle does not entail that all abortion is murder. If the principle used to distinguish person from nonperson is the presence of a mind--a brain developed sufficiently to support self-consciousness and self-awareness--then at least early stage abortions do not involve the killing of a person, but infanticide still does. (By the way, there may be other reasons for rejecting infanticide even if it didn't involve the killing of a person--for instance, the social consequences of drawing the boundary between personhood and non-personhood at a point later than birth might be sufficiently bad to draw the boundary at birth or earlier.)

Many of Brazill's arguments seem to presuppose theistic justifications for anti-abortion arguments. For example, she asks of Stafford, "Is he so naive he doesn't know that God has been called the 'greatest abortionist of all' because 30-50 percent of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted, usually without the woman even knowing?" This claim is as irrelevant to an atheist's anti-abortion argument as is the number of deaths due to natural disasters, since the focus of the discussion is about what it is ethical for human beings to do. If 50% of all births resulted in the immediate death of the baby due to natural causes, that would provide no justification at all for infanticide.

Stafford tries to defeat potential libertarian objections to his arguments by stating that "no one has the right to use his or her body to infringe on the rights of another," but fails to anticipate the common libertarian argument that the fetus, even if a person, is infringing on the rights of the mother. Stafford's own claim can be used as an argument that the fetus does not have a right to be carried to term without the consent of the mother, and may be evicted. It is not entirely clear to me that the "Infant Principle" would work as a rejoinder, since the mere existence of a child's body is not involve the use of the mother's body the way it does for a fetus. Once a child has been born, there are clear alternatives to abandonment and numerous actions of a mother which can be pointed to as evidence of consent to provide care (such as the fact that the child was brought to term).

Brazill also takes issue with Stafford's painting sexual behavior as tacit consent to pregnancy by claiming that his "ignorance of contraceptives is obvious, since the truth is that the shockingly few birth control methods available to American women ... failed to prevent pregnancy in over half of those women requesting abortions." I suspect that many of these involve condom failure due to misuse. But in any case, I'm not aware of any contraceptive method that is 100% effective even when used correctly, and this still doesn't address the argument about tacit consent.

Jim Lippard <lippard@discord.org>

§

Gina Trovas gin@rmii.com
Colo Springs, CO USA - Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 23:21:53 (MST)

§

Jan Brazill Replies:

Some critics seem to have missed the crux of my pro-choice argument. One claims (mistakenly) that I advocated birth as the point at which personhood is attained and that therefore, my definition of personhood is just as arbitrary as Stafford's (who claimed fertilization). Indeed, I was trying to show that people from various disciplines are able to propose a variety of points at which personhood could be assumed, so therefore the Roe decision is correct in saying that no one can proclaim one answer correct. If personhood is defined as an attainment of legal rights, then our society assigns full personhood at birth. But within limits, this point can be revised, as the Roe decision allows.

Some point out that comatose patients do not have the sentient capacities Professor Flowers thinks necessary for personhood. However, such patients were not always comatose, and personhood once bestowed is not taken away if that person loses consciousness. His objection that these attributes could also apply to animals has little bearing on this particular argument since the human potential of the fetus was never disputed. For that matter, many people often assign a certain degree of personhood to their pets, as do those who refuse to eat meat.

There was criticism of both Stafford and me for not coming to grips with the moral issues surrounding abortion. This was not the basis for the discussion, though I did state that the morality of the abortion decision is a personal matter, and that women are capable of making these moral decisions for themselves, without interference from the government or religious do-gooders. Dr. Henry Morgentaler has written that the question of the morality of abortion illustrates the profound difference between humanist ethics and traditional religious attitudes. Humanists are concerned for individual and collective well-being and are able to incorporate modern data and knowledge into their decisions, while many fundamentalist religions are bound by dogma and sexist traditions and are callously indifferent to the consequences for society.

The whole issue of abortion/contraception is about power and authority--who controls individual autonomy. The book I referenced, The Pope and The New Apocalypse: the Holy War Against Family Planning, contains a good example: when the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control met in 1964, they were given the task of finding a way to change the Catholic Church's position on birth control without destroying the Pope's authority.  Although the Commission voted overwhelmingly that a change was needed, the Pope declined their recommendation because his "authority" could not be preserved.

I take offense to one implication that Pro-Choice logic permits infanticide. It is the "Pro-Life" policy of encouraging any and all births that leads to overpopulated countries where infanticide is often used as a method of birth control. By promoting contraception and abortion when needed, we in the Pro-Choice movement help families control their fertility and avoid this dreadful decision. China, recognizing its growing population problem, first urged voluntary restraint in family-planning. When that did not accomplish the necessary reduction in numbers, they had to resort to stronger measures, advocating abortion. We need to recognize that a government that feels free to restrict a woman's right to abortion will also feel free to mandate abortion when conditions warrant.

The Worldwatch Institute shows that many governments with rapidly growing populations are showing signs of demographic fatigue, struggling with the simultaneous challenges of educating large numbers of children, creating millions of new jobs, and dealing with the various environmental problems associated with fast population growth, such as deforestation, soil erosion, and falling water tables. Human catastrophes are inevitable. I submit that these are problems of more gravity than whether a fertilized egg is a human-being. It is cruel to accomplish population stabilization by letting death rates from diseases offset high fertility rates, such as AIDS is beginning to do in Africa. It is a moral imperative that we start using the advances science has given us to control our numbers if we are to provide a decent world for the children who are born.

[ e-mail the URL of this page ] [top of page]

Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved. « disclaimer »