Some belated thoughts on Dr. Tiller's murder

The murder of Dr. George Tiller has evoked a strong emotional response within me. First of all, I feel anger and outrage that anyone who is "pro-life" could murder in cold blood. I also feel such sorrow and sadness for this man's family, both biological and ecclesial. I cannot imagine the grief and trauma they could be experiencing now.

But I also feel wildly compelled to correct the malicious lies misinformation about late term terminations being propagated by the so-called "pro-lifers" who oppose such procedures, casting women who make such a "choice" as wanton harlots who cannot be burdened by a pesky little thing such as a living baby. But this is not truth. This is not reality. At least not the reality I know.

My reality involves holding the hands of grieving parents who have made agonizing decisions to terminated longed for pregnancies. My reality has been reaching into incubators and offered blessings/prayers/baptism to dying babies born with myriad fetal anomalies. My reality is comforting grieving husbands whose wives has just died due to complications from their pregnancies.

But my reality isn't what is being told. And my reality isn't what necessarily needs to be told. My reality is one step removed from the real stories of grief, anguish, and heartache.

Obviously, the protesters outside the Tiller's Kansas clinic have no idea the reality of the "choices" these patients make. How anyone can know the heartbreaking truth and still cast these women as sinners is beyond me. But then again, how anyone can call themselves "Christian" and "pro-life" and then murder a doctor in his church is also beyond me.

More on Torture

CNN reports that the more religious a person is, the more likely s/he supports torture:

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

As one who opposes the use of torture, I find this disturbing. Why are the religious faithful more willing to suport torture than the "godless, immoral heathens"? What does this say about religious faith? Is anyone else troubled by this?

Torture

In case you have missed the news all a-twitter around the blogosphere, Sean Hannity, conservative windbag (in my opinion) and advocate of torture, has volunteered to be waterboarded - for charity. Such an offer came about in this way...

Charles Grodin, political commentator and actor (The Great Muppet Caper), appeared on Hannity's Fox News show on Wednesday. After some teasing and banter, Grodin brought up the subject of torture, which Hannity supports.

Grodin: You're for torture.
Hannity: I am for enhanced interrogation.
Grodin: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?
Hannity: No, but Ollie North has.
Grodin: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?
Hannity: Sure.
Grodin: Are you busy on Sunday?
Hannity: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.

This exchange is disturbing to me on so many levels. I believe torture is wrong. I believe it's wrong to use torture as a means of protecting "national security" (I don't think it's effective and I feel it's a violation of basic human rights). And I believe torture is wrong if it's done for charity to raise money for a good cause. I feel that even suggesting willingly submitting oneself to waterboarding somehow reduces torture, the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering to punish or intimidate or coerce. To waterboard Sean Hannity for charity diminishes the severity this act of torture to the level of harmless prank, to reality television, and you know, this is not what torture is.

I am so disappointed with my fellow liberals, most of whom have advocated AGAINST torture, who seem to have jumped on the waterboarding Hannity bandwagon. "Woohoo! let's waterboard Hannity!! It's about time!!" And why do they want to waterboard Hannity? Because they don't agree with his politics? Because he's a jackass? The prisoners in Guantanamo have political opinions which differ from those of their torturers. And many of them are beyond the level of jackass and are downright nasty people. Why do we think "torturing" Hannity would be okay? Doesn't this undermine our very opposition to torture? I believe that we are finally getting close to having our nation acknowledge the criminality and evil of our recent acts, and I believe allowing Hannity to go through with this sanctions this type of behavior and feeds right into the line that it "really isn't torture anyway."

For a much more coherent discussion on this topic, check out:

http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2009/04/should-we-waterboard-sean-hannity.html

Blogs I Read

So RevGalBlogPals wants to know what blogs I read regularly. And I am supposed to limit it to only five. Yikes! I have over 30 subscriptions in my Google Reader alone.

So I'll start by saying that I read the blogs of many of my friends, check out their recipes and cute pictures of their babies. I read what's in their hearts and on their minds (and in Lisa's case, in her fridge). But I won't list those blogs among my five though these friends often do challenge me, inspire me, and make me laugh.

That said, these are the blogs (by people other than my friends) I regularly read:

Reason, Skepticism, Atheism:
As a person with a complicated relationship with organized religion (at times, I have hope and believe that religion can be a positive and healing force in our world and in the lives of individuals, but I have also seen how, too often, religion and faith can be so destructive to people, to communities, and to societies at large), I am drawn to writers who engage me on an intellectual level, challenge my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and force me to wrestle with my understandings of self and systems and the world. I am especially interested in the discussions around ethics and morality from a non-religious perspective. First of all, I think the dialogue around ethics gets much more interesting and complex when you move beyond "'Cause the Bible tells me so." Secondly, I am discovering that without a god to blame or a god to forgive, people are challenged to articulate and to live into their ethical values in more integrated and consistent ways. My favorite blogs skeptic/atheist blogs are Unreasonable Faith and Pharyngula.

News and Politics:
I am a political junkie. The US election is over, but still I check DailyKos everyday. Sometimes several times a day. And recently, in my desire to learn about the Canadian political scene (I do reside here in the Great White North) despite my inability to vote here, I have begun to read InformedVote. I may even start writing for them!!

Friends' Health:
I have several friends recovering from injury or illness. Last year, when working at the Children's Hospital, I discovered the CaringBridge website which allows families and patients to update their friends and loved ones about their status. It's a great service they provide, so I am happy to plug their site. I do check in on my friends Grant and Anna everyday.

Humour:
So I must confess my guilty pleasure: laughing at these photos of cats and dogs and silly captions (with horrible spelling and grammar). I was pleased to learn that I was not alone in this addiction to the adorable LOLcats.

no monopoly on morality

A few years ago, I declared that I despised the game Monopoly and refused to play it ever again. I sited its obsessive capitalistic leanings as the reason, saying I didn't approve of the value (of fanatical financial acquisition) the game promoted. In reality, it's just a crappy game. Very little strategy is needed to win. In fact, you can play as perfect a game as your rolls allow, and still lose. Badly. As was the case the last time I played Monopoly and swore I would never play again. I hadn't fully realized that my hatred of this game stems from lack of interesting game-play (because the game really does promote a rampant, capitalistic behavior which I have long despised - though only recently has it become popular to despise) until I had to confront my own inconsistency when I was introduced to the game Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is a brilliantly designed game, which holds your interest with a fantastic balance of strategy and chance and player interaction. It's a truly fabulous game, with only one catch: the little pieces you acquire who represent the people who come to Puerto Rico to work your plantations. The game calls them "settlers". In reality, they are slaves. And slavery is not a value of mine. But the game is really good. Or at least, the game play is superb.

So, what do I do? I must confess I did a decent amount of moralizing against Monopoly in the past few years (sorry Ree!). I think this will just be the case where I name things for what they are, including my own inconsistency. I will admit that Monopoly does promote a value-system that is not my own, but that the reason I dislike the game is because it's a poorly designed game. And I will say that Puerto Rico does not promote my values, but I will admit that the game is fun to play.

And I did have fun playing the game last night over at Sharon and Eric's house.