Podcast #24 - Saddleback Forum
Saddleback Civil Forum - On August 16, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain appeared on stage together at Saddleback Church to be questioned by Pastor Rick “Purpose Driven” Warren. We analyze their performance, especially on matters of church-and-state. But really, is it so much to ask our candidates to please please please stop the kowtowing to religious types?
My Fundamentalist Friend - David recounts his recent conversation with a Christian co-worker. The man has more patience than I. Oy.
Announcements
We’ll be at Dragon*Con [dragoncon.org] August 29-September 1 in Atlanta, Georgia, participating in both the Skeptics track and the Podcasting track - including a LIVE episode of American Freethought at 5:30PM, Saturday, August 30.
David will be at the Atheist Alliance International convention in Long Beach, CA, Sept 25-28 [AtheistAlliance.org].
If you like science fiction, check out John’s SciFiDimensions Podcast [SciFiDimensions.com/podcast].
David’s Secular Nation Podcast [AtheistAlliance.org/podcast] has new episodes.
Join us for discussion at the American Freethought Yahoo Group [link].
We also have a new Facebook page.
Do you shop at Amazon.com? If so, add [this link] to your browser Favorites (alternatively, you can just click through the Amazon.com link in the right-hand column of the AmericanFreethought.com website. It won’t cost you a penny more; your purchases remain anonymous; and American Freethought gets a small percentage that will help offset our modest expenses and hopefully keep us out of the poor house.
Send feedback to contact@americanfreethought.com - attach voicemail in mp3 or wav format.
Music by Body Found [brickhouse-acoustics.com].
Recorded 08/24/2008. Hosted by John C. Snider and David Driscoll.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I had something quick to say about the abortion issue which may or may not rub yous the wrong way.
Let us remember that at the point of conception, the marrying of male and female representative cells, all of the DNA, the map that determines the biological ’start’ to what a human being is, personality, gender, body type and its attributes, and development ‘plan’ is complete.
in other words, being that there is no ’soul’ or personality beyond the body and brain, everything is in place in a zygote (sp?) that it needs internally (not externally like nourishment) that makes it what we would consider, as atheists, human.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Hi, guys.
Another good show. Here are a few of comments:
Abortion: This issue of when life begins is not a science-based question, but instead a values-based question. And as such the answers vary immensely between people.
(Even using common standards, one can reach different conclusions on life’s beginning: Sentience is a tricky standard, because there are some aspects of sentience that do not arise until 9 months or more AFTER a baby’s birth. A fetus’ viability outside the womb is equally tricky, because medical advances continue to make push viability ever earlier in gestation.)
We will therefore never reach a final answer on this. We can only reach a consensus on how much freedom we wish to take away from all women in order to accommodate the values of a few Americans. In that context, I think it becomes more reasonable to allow women to choose up to a certain (admittedly arbitrary) point in the course of a pregnancy, and then from that point forward tell all women that they no longer have a right to make a choice … they will carry the fetus to full term.
Gay Marriage: In some matters it makes sense to leave issues to the individual states. However, given the fact that marriage carries with it such interwoven rights & responsibilities, it is impractical and arguably unconstitutional to say that a couple is married in Massachusetts and unmarried in Georgia.
Imagine that you decided to travel on vacation from Georgia to the state of Calichusetts. While there, you have an auto accident, and your wife is unconscious. Now imagine that Calichusetts does not recognize your marriage and insists on speaking to your wife’s next of kin for treatment permission … And under Calichusetts law, that isn’t you. This state of affairs exists for gay couples in the US, and it is fundamentally robbing them of the rights of equal protection under the law. Your suggestion would perpetuate this injustice.
Child Abuse: OK, for the sake of argument, let’s say that raising a child in the family religion IS child abuse. What do you recommend as a solution? Removing the child? Forcing the parents to attend parenting classes? What if they refuse to change?
I am urging all of my fellow atheists to drop this big-brotherish attack on parenting rights. I work in mental health, and I have come to believe that child abuse needs to have very specific definitions, and that when it occurs, the state should become involved in parenting to protect the children. However, this should be a “last resort” option. Accusing someone of child abuse is accusing them of a crime. Unless you are prepared to prosecute the parents & put children in foster care (which in most cases would be far worse) at tax-payer expense, and have the child grow up knowing that they were torn from the loving arms of their parents because of a thought-crime, we need to let this one go.
As an alternative, keep banging the drum on how religious parenting stunts the intellectual and emotional growth of children. This is how we have reduced smoking and drinking during pregnancy, increased stimulation during early infancy, and helped bring dad’s back into the parenting fold … all good outcomes from simple public awareness.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
The issue of when life begins can be a science question, if we consider the idea of consciousness, or sentience, as the beginning, or an important landmark for determining when it begins. The phrase “when life begins” is really a way to talk about when the child has a certain moral value. If you ascribe a being’s moral value by characteristics which can be measured by scientific means, then it is a science question. Of course, we don’t yet know how to measure sentience, but it is not outlandish to think that we eventually will be able to.
On the child abuse point: Dawkins never said that raising a child with religious belief is child abuse. What he said was that labeling a child as a “Christian child” or “Muslim child” is abusive, because it assumes that the child has chosen the values of the given group, when it is obvious that they don’t have the capacity to do so. Dawkins has even said that of course a parent will instill their beliefs in their child, especially if she thinks that those beliefs are necessary for eternal salvation. But ascribing the characteristics of a religious group to a child, who cannot make those decisions, is abusive, especially if that child is treated in such a way you would treat a person who chose those beliefs.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Good clarification Jeff on Dawkin’s point about the labeling of children being abusive not the raising. I went back and read that chapter of “The God Delusion” and you are correct.
I will change it to my personal view, that raising a child to believe that most of the people in the world, including most of their schoolmates are going to burn forever in hell, and so will they if they don’t follow the bible literally is child abuse. I also think the limiting a child’s education by excluding evolution because of the literal belief in the Bible is also abusive and has long lasting effects not only on the child but on society as a whole.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
on abortion - if i were asked when a fetus is sentient (in this instance i define it as self-awareness), from my own observations with my children and others’, that doesn’t happen until many months after the birth. no joke. a new-born can’t differentiate itself from the environment, confusing its identification with its surroundings; i.e. pain isn’t to a young baby local to its physical body, but instead it is perceived to affect the everything because it is not self aware. using sentience as a definition of what makes us human, i don’t think, is a reasonable one.
what makes the subject of abortion so convoluted is the issue of women’s rights. i don’t want to squash the rights of any human, but i can’t get over the deliberate death of what i see as ‘human’.
on Jeff’s point on the child abuse - abso-freakin-lutely. choosing the child’s belief system, a fully subjective matter, stunts its creative and reasonable mind like restricting the growth of a bansai (sp?) tree.