Most religions of the world consider some form of fasting a necessary part of their spiritual health. Catholics avoid meat for lent for the commemoration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hindus consider fasting a part of regular prayer and worship, and a way to be near to God. Muslims abstain from food over Ramadan to practice patience, modesty and spirituality for the sake of God. As something ancient and religious born of caves and camels, my first inclination is to assume there is absolutely no merit to any fasting activity at all other than its effect of humbling the subjects of priests and clerics so they can be managed more easily. But, before we attempt to salvage some reasoning for this sacred behavior, let's consider the other reasons a modern person might deprive themselves, and explain why they are all absurd and useless.
1. I want to go to heaven.
In a world afflicted by the obstinate, infantile and superstitious stupor of the feelgood mega church phenomenon, this is an acceptable excuse for doing pretty much anything; baking cakes, holding the door, or, if you're in the Manson family, brutally murdering anyone Charlie tells you to and writing creepy things on their walls in blood. Yes, the slight possibility of escaping eternal physical agony is enough to convince some folks to flirt with atrocities that approach the limits of human comprehension. Fasting does prevent one from committing them with quite the energy they would have otherwise, but only to a marginal degree. Fasting will not get you to heaven. It will only make your frenzied stab wounds less lethal. You are still a bad person and you will still probably go to hell if there is such a place.
2. I am holier. HAH!
You fast in order to assert a reputation of holiness and moral superiority. You are David Blaine in a box hovering over London proving to the world that asceticism is the key to fame and fortune. You are a dumb ass.
3. I'm angry as hell and I'm not going to take it any more.
Ah, yes, you have something very important to say, but you don't have the words to say it. You fast as a way to communicate to your significant other that you are not getting enough sex. Subsequently, you become irritable and obnoxious, and acquire nothing for your efforts besides lonely evenings on the couch. You protest in vain, using the diplomatic sensibilities of a 4 year old threatening to hold his breath. You are also a dumb ass.
Well, that about sums it up. There is no reason to fast that pertains to our worldly existence other than some internal inclination that could not be prescribed by anyone else. That is all.
(Why all this? Because I dressed up as a monk and drank beer for three days at the Renaissance Festival and don't feel guilty about it at all).
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Late Term Abortion
With the recent slaughter of a man who assists women safely kill babies/parasites (whichever you like) weeks before they would otherwise be born, I am moved to voice my thoughts of the matter here, as I consider his life choice and profession a courageous exercise in human justice...
To those who attack abortion doctors:
You have cast the first stone, if I may speak biblically. It seems the pro-life crowd responds to this type of language. Your love for another's baby is admirable, and even unavoidable. Your ignorance of the sanctity and responsibility of motherhood is unfortunate. One thousand women might one day choose to volunteer to impregnate themselves and then tear the ripe fetuses from their own bodies in the most graphic statement imaginable to prove that their baby is not yours; not even if your covetous emotional stability (often mistook for conscience) is dependent on adopting them all. Unless you can personally restrain her in your maternity ward/dungeon, of which the likes any free and civil society is instituted to prevent, you have no right to prevent her violation of that very clear commandment (with, through implication, I reserve for humans and fetuses), that 'Thou shalt not kill.' This is not Minority Report, you are not a Precog, and there is no such thing as a pre-crime. A woman's reign over her unborn child is a bond more secure than any legal or social abstraction and welded by that most perfect and unchangeable force in the universe; that of natural law. If God ever did grant a human the authority to rule over another it is the mother over her unborn fetus, and if you do not grant that, then you certainly cannot argue that God granted you the power to force her, against her will, to relinquish that authority. If she does not know it herself, empathy may move you to remind her that God will be the judge, which I consider the limit of your rightful interference.
To the dead children:
If you had not been relieved of your worldly duties so soon, your barbaric mother would have likely extended your suffering in ways so dramatically more horrific, physically and/or emotionally, that the world secretly pities you less for having suffered so quick a death.
To the abortion doctors:
They say women must have access to safe abortions lest they harm themselves with unsanitary and dangerous procedures in secret. This is the argument I have heard, which is weak and irrelevant. Even if no woman has harmed herself in want of the procedure, access to it, if a willing doctor exists, is inherently justified. The unreasonable and aggressive attack upon the unchangeable principle defined above is now raging. While it may seem an attack against a fact of nature is harmless and futile, like draining one ocean into another, it is not. We must consider how such efforts would otherwise have been directed. The army dedicated to draining the Atlantic into the Pacific not only exerts its own time and labor at the expense of what good they might otherwise do, but also, they divert all the resources procured from other sources for this completely irrelevant purpose. What expecting mother is moved to swear-off her abortion appointment upon seeing a cutesy "pro-life" billboard along the highway - the one between two other corporate advertisements encouraging her to ingest a particular brand of fast food. Such tasteless propaganda directed in this way, in my estimation, is offensive and dehumanizing to any expecting mother, and can only serve to encourage the exact opposite of the intended result. (What baby deserves to suffer a prison bemired and so heavily influenced by such malfeasance). Moving beyond billboards and other wasted resources, the deadly recent example was far from harmless. The killing of a defender of (what I call) the principal of feminine liberty is a tragic loss, not only of a human life, but of one dedicated to this evasive and unpopular truth; that a fetus is not property of the state, and invisible to it for all intents and purposes.
To further illustrate the necessity for this understanding, consider the nurturing way a 'mother state' already treats its youth, targeting them to ruthlessly kill in their belligerent nation's war for reasons they couldn't possibly begin to understand? Certainly if they could they might reconsider (e.g. to protect Stalin, to defend Mao, etc.). The young man's country assures him he is relieved of his moral responsibility and made a champion for obediently killing people, while left little choice with the sharp bayonet against his back. How much more justified is the defense of a principal that is understood, by a doctor with the courage and ability to defend it while at the same time jeopardizing his own life?
George Tiller was martyred in defense of the sacred principal that a woman's authority over her body and unborn child is complete, and that no other person, state, or organization may wield the power to compel the fruition of a pregnancy against the mother's will. Any person, state, or organization that wields this power also wields the power to compel an abortion, the most egregious abuse of authority imaginable, and one that would mark the end of any population's rank among the word's civilized communities.
What nation is worth instituting and defending if not to protect the lives and to respect the decisions of those expectant mothers solely responsible for nurturing the newest members of our culture and fostering the continuation of its principals. What culture or population is worth propagating if its mothers are so fearful and disrespected that they only accept motherhood against their will? What future can we expect for such a society, and who do we expect to defend it?
To those who attack abortion doctors:
You have cast the first stone, if I may speak biblically. It seems the pro-life crowd responds to this type of language. Your love for another's baby is admirable, and even unavoidable. Your ignorance of the sanctity and responsibility of motherhood is unfortunate. One thousand women might one day choose to volunteer to impregnate themselves and then tear the ripe fetuses from their own bodies in the most graphic statement imaginable to prove that their baby is not yours; not even if your covetous emotional stability (often mistook for conscience) is dependent on adopting them all. Unless you can personally restrain her in your maternity ward/dungeon, of which the likes any free and civil society is instituted to prevent, you have no right to prevent her violation of that very clear commandment (with, through implication, I reserve for humans and fetuses), that 'Thou shalt not kill.' This is not Minority Report, you are not a Precog, and there is no such thing as a pre-crime. A woman's reign over her unborn child is a bond more secure than any legal or social abstraction and welded by that most perfect and unchangeable force in the universe; that of natural law. If God ever did grant a human the authority to rule over another it is the mother over her unborn fetus, and if you do not grant that, then you certainly cannot argue that God granted you the power to force her, against her will, to relinquish that authority. If she does not know it herself, empathy may move you to remind her that God will be the judge, which I consider the limit of your rightful interference.
To the dead children:
If you had not been relieved of your worldly duties so soon, your barbaric mother would have likely extended your suffering in ways so dramatically more horrific, physically and/or emotionally, that the world secretly pities you less for having suffered so quick a death.
To the abortion doctors:
They say women must have access to safe abortions lest they harm themselves with unsanitary and dangerous procedures in secret. This is the argument I have heard, which is weak and irrelevant. Even if no woman has harmed herself in want of the procedure, access to it, if a willing doctor exists, is inherently justified. The unreasonable and aggressive attack upon the unchangeable principle defined above is now raging. While it may seem an attack against a fact of nature is harmless and futile, like draining one ocean into another, it is not. We must consider how such efforts would otherwise have been directed. The army dedicated to draining the Atlantic into the Pacific not only exerts its own time and labor at the expense of what good they might otherwise do, but also, they divert all the resources procured from other sources for this completely irrelevant purpose. What expecting mother is moved to swear-off her abortion appointment upon seeing a cutesy "pro-life" billboard along the highway - the one between two other corporate advertisements encouraging her to ingest a particular brand of fast food. Such tasteless propaganda directed in this way, in my estimation, is offensive and dehumanizing to any expecting mother, and can only serve to encourage the exact opposite of the intended result. (What baby deserves to suffer a prison bemired and so heavily influenced by such malfeasance). Moving beyond billboards and other wasted resources, the deadly recent example was far from harmless. The killing of a defender of (what I call) the principal of feminine liberty is a tragic loss, not only of a human life, but of one dedicated to this evasive and unpopular truth; that a fetus is not property of the state, and invisible to it for all intents and purposes.
To further illustrate the necessity for this understanding, consider the nurturing way a 'mother state' already treats its youth, targeting them to ruthlessly kill in their belligerent nation's war for reasons they couldn't possibly begin to understand? Certainly if they could they might reconsider (e.g. to protect Stalin, to defend Mao, etc.). The young man's country assures him he is relieved of his moral responsibility and made a champion for obediently killing people, while left little choice with the sharp bayonet against his back. How much more justified is the defense of a principal that is understood, by a doctor with the courage and ability to defend it while at the same time jeopardizing his own life?
George Tiller was martyred in defense of the sacred principal that a woman's authority over her body and unborn child is complete, and that no other person, state, or organization may wield the power to compel the fruition of a pregnancy against the mother's will. Any person, state, or organization that wields this power also wields the power to compel an abortion, the most egregious abuse of authority imaginable, and one that would mark the end of any population's rank among the word's civilized communities.
What nation is worth instituting and defending if not to protect the lives and to respect the decisions of those expectant mothers solely responsible for nurturing the newest members of our culture and fostering the continuation of its principals. What culture or population is worth propagating if its mothers are so fearful and disrespected that they only accept motherhood against their will? What future can we expect for such a society, and who do we expect to defend it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
