ethics « State of Protest

Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Condoms Exacerbate AIDS says Most Popular Asshole on Planet (aka The Pope)

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

I’m going to curse a bit, so, if you mind, you might want to skip this one.

What the FUCK?

First, why is this man speaking, let alone speaking on behalf of one of the most populous organizations in the world? Second, why is anyone listening to him? Why are we giving him the attention and quite often the deference he so craves?

This is a follow-up to my post on If the Pope Changes His Mind…

Here are some updates regarding how the Pope is an idiot, and how, despite that fact, he’s still “in charge,” and the media keeps giving him attention and, indirectly, credence:

UPDATE: More evidence and support of my notion that people rely way too heavily (which is any at all) on what the Vatican has to say has been cited by PZ Myers on Pharyngula:
Eluana Englaro has been in a vegetative state for 17 years, and her family has finally won the battle to take her off life support. Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi consulted with the Vatican to impose an emergency decree blocking the suspension of life support, based on the excuse that she is “in the condition to have babies.”

This is a great example of why religion should not be respected by law, and how people still view the Vatican and Pope as some supreme authority on morality and other issues.

UPDATE 2: Pope declares that condom use increases AIDS problem.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

That’s a classic Pope line. Even John Paul II thought similarly about sex. But what really pisses me off is that the richest church in the world, to which its members tithe 10% of their income, has this to say about the economic difficulties facing those members:

The pope also said Tuesday that he intends to make an appeal for “international solidarity” for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give “spiritual and moral” suggestions.

Describing the current crisis as the consequence of “a deficit of ethics in economic structures,” the pope said: “It is here that the church can make a contribution.”

Fucking bullshit.

Common Sense Catholics need to get off their duffs and boycott this angry little man, and, in turn, perhaps the media will start ignoring him.

UPDATE 3: Vatican edits the Pope.

But yesterday the Vatican website published an edited text changing his words to say that the use of condoms “risks” aggravating the problem.

Reporters who taped the Italian-language interview said the Pope, who speaks fluent Italian, did not say the word “risks” on Tuesday and he was unequivocal in saying that condoms aggravate the epidemic.

Hell, in my previous article, I asked What if the Pope changes his mind? Today, I have to ask, What if the Vatican changes it for him?

Oh, how I would love to see the Catholic church dissolve in my lifetime.

Tags: Africa, AIDS, boycott, bullshit, Catholic, church, Eden, ethics, family, fuck, Law, minister, moral, Morality, plane, Pope, Religion, Science, sex, spirit, Vatican
Posted in Religion | 13 Comments »

The Trend of Obama Doubt

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

Is he merely catering to the small minority of Christian fundamentalist fanatics whom he threatens to depose by his mere accession to the presidential seat? Is he secretly homophobic? Is this subtle humor to show us what life would have been like under a McCain/Palin administration? Did all the hundreds of other potential choices have something scheduled on January 20th? Or was Obama just not thinking straight when he decided to invite the notorious fundamentalist homophobe Rick Warren to offer an inaugural prayer next month?

Yes, this is what everyone is jabbering about right now. Oh my God, you picked Rick Warren!?!?! Out of all the people! Well, I was jabbering, among a few others, about Obama’s pro-Christian, to the point of making me nervous about him, attitude way back in July, when I wrote “Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God.” I mentioned that in light of rumors that Obama was Muslim, because he had attended a Muslim school for a short time as a child, Obama’s “Factcheck” web page, devoted to quelling such rumors, spent an inordinate amount of space not only just simply denying Obama’s Muslimhood, but also wildly exaggerating Obama’s Christianity. I was worried that what appeared to be wild exaggeration was actually a sign that Obama was a closet fundamentalist, or at least has a strong preference for the Christian religion and beliefs. My examination of the statements he’s made to that effect in the past, coupled with his selection of Rick Warren, have solidified my doubts about his demeanor with regard to Christian partisanship.

Regarding Warren, vjack at Atheist Revolution sums the pastor up nicely:

-Warren supported the ban on gay marriage in California.
-Warren opposes reproductive rights.
-Warren is clearly outside mainstream America and has been compared, fairly I believe, to James Dobson. Hell, he’s compared himself to Dobson!¹

Now, we probably shouldn’t jump on the guilt by association bandwagon (as Obama’s opponents were wont to do during the election), but there are significantly safer, more neutral, and more politically correct (forgive me) selections for an inaugural companion. And this news of the Warren selection is right on the heels of other questionable behavior by Obama — notably, his cabinet choices. Having a cabinet and set of advisors that even Cheney agrees with should send up little red flags all over America.

Someone should ask Obama about what part of “change” we must have misunderstood. Is this country about to be run by the old administration in sheep’s clothing? Instead, how about… A bit of change away from the status quo of treating Christians and most other mainstream religions with preference; a change away from the Bush Doctrine; a change away from civil rights destruction (including the Patriot Act and its relatives); a change away from arbitrary discrimination in the guise of morality, promoted and perpetuated by religious groups; a change from the useless war on drugs (that ends up leaving the U.S. with the highest ratio of inmates in the entire world); a change from sexual discrimination in every form; a change away from criminalization of that which does not hurt, but is criminalized solely because of puritan influence; a change from pointless wars or wars fought for oil, or dominance, or whatever; a change from homophobia and the perpetuation of tradition that used to sit comfortably next to slavery and treating women as chattel. This isn’t change for the sake of change. It’s a change to improve our lives, get us out from under the foot of oppression, and help make this entire world more livable and, gods forbid, lovable.

Where’s that change, Obama? I don’t see it. I see, again, falling in line.

-Procrustes (pissed)

—

Who else has something to say about this issue?

Christopher Hitchens, at Slate, says we can do much better than Warren. If we must have an officiating priest.

Rob Boston at the AU Blog says that although Warren poses as a moderate, he’s really just another Falwell wannabee.

Vjack, as mentioned above, has a few things to say, including the wise advice to not sweep this one under the rug. He’s also indirectly supplied me with a few of these links to other articles, as well as bringing to my attention the contact information for Obama’s team.

The Atheist Experience is calling this Obama’s first big screwup.

Pam Spaulding, at Pam’s House Blend, suggests that although it’s a good idea to let the Obama camp know how we feel about this issue, it’s unlikely to be reversed.

Dave Silverman, at American Atheists, reminds Obama that he’s supposed to be a Democrat. (however, I say, look at the behavior of the rest of the self-proclaimed Democrats in Congress)

Bligbi nails the point in that by choosing Warren, Obama is making the pastor his representative. And, better yet, calls Obama out on his claim to be a fierce advocate of the LGBT community.

CNN has an interview of Rick Warren by Kiran Chetry.

Greta Christina (recently featured at BoingBoing) worries that Obama just wants everyone to like him, and in his attempt to eschew intolerance, he will become too tolerant.

Daily Kos acknowledges that there may be a silver lining in all this — that Obama will now be forced to continue to affirm his stance of equality with regard to LGBT rights.

Olbermann on Warren:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More to follow soon, as the theatrics roll.

StOP

http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/12/obamas-inaugural-blunder-rick-warren.html [<]

Tags: administration, advisor, America, association, atheist, ban, Barack Obama, belief, BoingBoing, Boston, bright, Bush, Bush Doctrine, Cain, California, Cheney, Christ, Christianity, Civil Rights, CNN, Congress, criminal, Criminalization, Democrat, Dobson, doctrine, economy, election, ethics, Evolution, Falwell, family, First Amendment, fundamental, gay, Gay community, god, Government, Hitchens, Homosexuality, Interview, Invocation, Iran, James Dobson, LGBT, Maddow, McCain, moral, Morality, MSNBC, Muslim, NBC, Obama, Olbermann, Palin, Patriot Act, political, prayer, president, Procrustes, puritan, Religion, Rick Warren, rights, school, scroll, sex, Sexual Discrimination, slavery, theist, tolerance, United States, vote, war
Posted in Government, Religion, Sexuality | 7 Comments »

Woman Jailed Over Scarf, Appropriately?

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

A few months ago, I posted an article criticizing the greatly increasing idea that over-tolerance for religious tradition should trump practical necessity. In particular, I cited a case in which a judge in Britain disallowed a Muslim attorney from advocating in court because her refusal to remove her traditional Muslim head garb made her difficult to understand and ineffective as a counselor. I proffered that it was a reasonable infringement upon “custom,” and that its purpose was not to oppress religious practice, but, instead, to facilitate something necessary, for the sake of society and government effectiveness.

On Tuesday, a judge in Georgia charged a Muslim woman with contempt of court and ordered her jailed for ten days because she refused to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint.¹ Although she didn’t serve her full sentence, due to the intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she claims her civil rights had been violated, and she was reminded of the stories she had heard about the civil rights strife in the southern U.S. ²

The incident shouldn’t remind her of such stories. The premise is distinctly different. In the south, black people were segregated and barred from entry from places solely because of the color of their skin. That was the litmus test sufficient to perpetuate that heinous behavior. Lisa Valentine, the alleged victim of the civil rights infringement in this story, however, was not punished arbitrarily for having an attribute that was genetically gifted to her. She was punished for wearing a piece of clothing on her head that she insisted remain on her head, presumably to honor and obey her husband, Islam, and Allah. Her reasoning is irrelevant. The practical nature of the request to have her head scarf removed trumped her religious preference specifically because of the narrow scope of that request — that it was for the purpose of safety and security in a government operated public facility. In short, it’s hard to identify someone on security tape footage if that person’s head is covered.

How do we test this to determine whether Mrs. Valentine was being unjustly singled out for her religion? Walk into a Georgia courthouse wearing a motorcycle helmet, and then refuse to remove it, because, you’ll claim, “It violates my civil rights to have my cherished helmet removed.” For whatever reason you’ve donned such garb, it will be insufficient to override the universally applied restriction. You’d have to take off your helmet. I’d have to take off my baseball cap. It’s the same idea as if someone at an airport refused to succumb to a wand search, or removal of shoes. Regardless of the reason, religious, secular, paranoia, custom — that person would be refused access to the planes, and would likely spend a few hours in interrogation.

So, instead of a passive trait, such as skin color, being the target of hate-filled men with prejudice, where everyone possessing that characteristic would be equally mistreated, this is a case of a choice, an action that the actor tries to justify using religion and culture, being barred in a narrow circumstance, applied only to those who act similarly in that circumstance.

Although there is apparently no state law permitting or prohibiting head scarfs, it’s the discretion of the judge and sheriffs whether to allow or disallow them, and the courthouse security officers enforce that decision. I really would like to see if someone wearing a baseball cap could get through security. If that happened, then it’s obvious that there is a double standard at that courthouse, and Mrs. Valentine’s rights were, indeed, violated.

Despite my overall argument that religious rights should have no extra bonuses over basic civil rights, due process, and free speech, among other things, I must confess that I have serious issues with any decision a judge in the U.S. makes regarding religious tolerance or intolerance when that judge quite likely has on the wall behind him the big, bold words, “In God We Trust.”³

-Procrustes

StOP

Last year, the same judge apparently did the same thing to a different Muslim woman. [<]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/muslim-woman-jailed-over-_n_151858.html [<]
According to Wikipedia, “In God We Trust is found on the flag of Georgia, flag of Florida, and the Seal of Florida. It was first adopted by the state of Georgia for use on flags in 2001, and subsequently included on the Georgia flag of 2003.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust [<]

Tags: Allah, America, attorney, ban, Britain, Civil Rights, Constitution, Contempt of court, Council on American-Islamic Relations, ethics, First Amendment, Florida, free speech, Freedom of speech, Georgia, god, Government, Huffington, islam, Islamic, Law, Lisa Valentine, Muslim, Procrustes, Religion, rights, Seal of Florida, secular, Sexuality, tolerance, United States, valentine
Posted in Government, Religion | 7 Comments »

Life and Death

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

The believers among us are most apt to argue about when life begins. Does life begin at birth, at conception or somewhere in-between? The question of when death occurs is not asked often since a fortuitous death by accident or natural death by illness occurs out of the control of the recently deceased.

However, we have had cases where death has occurred somewhere in the middle, leaving a dilemma for bystanders who see medical professionals and grief-stricken relatives arguing about the state of the patient and the likely outcome of a course of treatment. The most well-known case of recent times was that of Terri Schiavo, who existed in a persistent vegetative state without any reasonable chance of recovery and whose sole existence was provided through parenteral nutrition.

Today, we have in the news yet another case of the game of When Does Death Occur.¹ A young boy named Motl Brody is confined to a hospital following unsuccessful treament of cancer — unfortunately, Motl’s brain stem has “no electrical function”. Motl is dead. While this case would simply end by the patient being removed from life support, Motl’s parents are Hasidic Jews who follow their religious definition of death: the cessation of lung and heart functions.² The irony is that the life support system that supports Motl is entirely man-made and without it Motl’s body would immediately cease to function. The religious definition of death has collided with technology.

How long can medical technology keep Motl’s body alive to satisfy the Judaic definition of non-death? Though no one knows for sure, Motl could live another 10 or 20 years before the actual tissues of his heart or lungs disintegrate (Motl is currently 12 years old). Yes, he is being pumped full of drugs that do the things that his endocrine system cannot since there is zero neurological function. Do we allow religious beliefs, however antiquated or insufficient to deal with modern life, continue to rule the rest of us?

With all due respect to grief-stricken families who wish to allow their loved ones to be maintained, in perpetuity, by a machine that replaces all bodily functions while the standard human functions are irretrievably gone, we should demand that logic and reason withstand the emotional pleas or the silly, outdated religious definitions of when life begins or when death occurs. We are a nation of secular laws that continually suffers from the intrusions of those who believe that an ancient book which speaks of an imaginary sky-daddy somehow should take precedence over the intellect of the human mind.

It will now be up the court system to decide if Motl Brody has passed away. If the court wishes to decide that Motl has not passed away, whether by acquiescing to a religious definition of death (a heinous outcome) or by concluding by some other means that Motl is still alive, the court system should also find that since there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitating Motl to a state which can be considered minimally interactive for a human, the family can surely keep the loved one alive if the family is willing to pay for the entire cost.

Though it is unlikely that the court system will find in favor of The Brodys to keep young Motl connected to life support, even if the court system agrees with the religious beliefs of The Brodys there should be no further demands placed upon those who do not share the same religious beliefs.

UPDATE

Motl Brody has died. He was still on life support at the time of his death, so the legal issue of death is no longer present.³

Download the Podcast – Narrated by Huntingdon

MSNBC.com: NY Family opposes end to care for brain-dead boy. November 8, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27603719/ [<]
See Transplantation Ethics, Chapter 7, The Conscience Clause: How Much Individual Choice Can Society Tolerate in Defining Death?, by Robert M. Veatch. http://books.google.com/books?id=aNcbKssW30IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA114,M1 [<]
WashingtonPost.com: Boy whose religious parents battled hospital dies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111601226_pf.html [<]

Tags: ancient, belief, birth, Brody, death, Eden, ethics, family, human, Judaism, Law, legal, Logic, Love, medical, medicine, Motl, Motl Brody, MSNBC, NBC, Religion, Schiavo, Science, secular, Washington
Posted in Atheism, Logic, Morality, Religion, Science | No Comments »

Photography Laws, Photographer Rights

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

Yesterday, I asked a hypothetical question about how you would react to a police officer demanding that you delete your photos or hand over your camera after you’ve taken pictures of public buildings while standing in a public place.¹ I also linked to a number of articles that provide ample evidence that photographers are being targeted by overzealous police and security personnel “for reasons of national security” and otherwise.

Today, I’m going to offer up some links to resources that you might find beneficial if you ever decide to take a photograph outside your own residence. Considering that so many cell phones have their own cameras, and that cameras are becoming more and more portable, it’s likely that anyone reading this has a camera, and can probably benefit from a bit of knowledge about what freedoms and restrictions exist in the realm of photography.²

The Photographer’s Right: A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Photography Bay — Photography Laws

Photo Attorney (look for the “Photography Not Allowed” posts for more examples of harassment)

Legal Andrew: Photo Law – Your Right to Take Pictures in Public

PhotoPermit.org

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

PhotoSecrets: The Law For Photographers — A free, online guide to the rules of taking and selling photos.
PhotoSecrets Links page

Covington & Burling memo to the National Press Photographers Association regarding Rights of Journalists on Public Streets, August 15, 2005

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad
prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law,
including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the
basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may
constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

The basic rule of thumb is that if the general public has access to a public forum
and may operate cameras within it, the press may do so as well.

Photo Junkie: Photographers Rights

Photos & The Law: The Legality of Urban Exploration Photography

Andrew Kantor: Legal Rights of Photographers
Kantor’s USATODAY photography rights article

Student Media of North Carolina State University: Photographers’ Manual

U.K. Photographers Rights

Canadian Photography Laws

Feel free to include suggestions of your own in the comments.

Why, you ask, is a blog devoted to rational activism posting articles regarding a photographer’s right to take pictures in public? Quite simply, State of Protest is dedicated to the elimination of all aspects of irrational, fear-based oppression, whether it be from religious organizations, political factions, neighborhood lynch party groups, or school boards. The photography issue has escalated since 9/11, and we’re all harmed by the misconception that restricting photography somehow ensures national security. While we, as a nation, criticize countries like China for restricting blogger, journalist, and photographer ability to capture and disseminate media critical of the government, we simultaneously create a false requirement of the same restrictions on the basis of national security. All the while, the government continues to increase its ability (and legal right) to invade our privacy with wiretapping, cctv, and other methods of information acquisition.

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

– James Madison. Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788. [<]
Note that I am not affiliated with any of the individuals or organizations behind these links. I’ve derived the links from my own searches. I’m not being paid to provide any of these links. I am not providing any legal advice, and I am not suggesting that any of the links provide legal, proper, or correct advice. I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, consult an licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction. [<]

Tags: abuse, Activism, Amendment, ancient, association, attorney, ban, Burling, camera, Canadian, China, civilization, Constitution, delete, ethics, First Amendment, free speech, freedom, Government, history, irrational, journalism, Kant, Law, legal, Patriot Act, photo, photograph, photography, photography law, police, political, public forum, rational, rights, rules, school, school board, terrorism, UK, Virginia, vote, war
Posted in Government, Logic | No Comments »