Monday, August 22, 2005

Rudolph the Redneck Christian Terrorist

Christian Terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph apologized today for the bombing of the 1996 Olympics. Unfortunately, he refused to apologize for the bombing of two family planning (abortion) clinics. Apparently Rudolph thinks that those clinic bombings were justified, judging by his silence. And Rudolph has been known to spout Christian propaganda to justify his terrorist acts.

Very few Christians would agree that terrorism is an appropriate method to combat abortion. But on the other hand, many Christians would agree with Rudolph’s view that abortion is wrong. Christian anti-abortionists mistakenly call themselves “pro-life,” thinking that their stance against reproductive self-determination is somehow beneficial to life. Well, it isn’t. Once again, the pro-afterlifers have it backwards. Quantitatively and qualitatively, reproductive self-determination (abortion) is proven to be beneficial to humans, and therefore is much more “pro-life” than any anti-abortion ideology.

History has shown that when individual humans are afforded more individual responsibility and self-determination, society benefits as a result. The recognition of individual rights and self-determination has resulted in achievements like universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the American Bill of Rights, and capitalism. Abortion is no different. In societies where abortion is legal, there is less crime, less mentally and physically disabled people, less child abuse, less poverty, and lower infant mortality rates. In other words, societies with legalized abortion have a higher quality of life.

Self-determination, and the recognition of individual rights, always yields superior results to the alternative path: letting someone else make your choices for you.

It’s easy to see why religious people and pro-afterlifers think that abortion is murder, but it’s also easy to see why they are wrong. They have the idea that a “soul” magically gets implanted into a human egg cell the moment it gets penetrated by a sperm. They basically think that a human consciousness exists in a single cell, but only after it gets fertilized. Does anyone else notice the irrational religious bias here? Why is there no soul in the egg, or sperm for that matter, before they combine? Why is there a soul in the fertilized egg long before it even begins making any specialized components, like the backbone or the heart or brain? The answer to all of these questions is “because God implants the soul at conception.”

The anti-abortionists’ self-label of “pro-life” is disingenuous. What’s more ironic is that they don’t even realize that they are disingenuous. They don’t define “life” by any scientific, biological, or humane standard in their anti-abortion stance. They define it by their superstitious God belief. The foundation of their argument is not life, but God. Therefore, they should be calling themselves “pro-God.” Consequently, the term “pro-life” should go to the side that can provide evidence of their position’s betterment of life. That side, ironically, is the “pro-choice” side.

What happens when you cross ancient superstitions with reproductive rights issues? You get Rudolph the Redneck Terrorist. Whether it’s gay bashing or clinic bombing, these religions are very anti-choice and anti-life. The “pro-life” label belongs to those who support reproductive self-determination.

After all, I’ve never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?


Anonymous said...

Nice post AK. I agree 100 %. It's a little off topic, but your post made me think of the immaculate conception. The idea that Mary's egg was fertilized by God who then gave birth to himself (while the Holy Ghost was jerking off in the corner, I suppose). It is fustrating that amazing, proof-of-existence miracles abounded back then, and all we would need now is one more miracle to clear everything up.

I keep coming back to "Why don't the Christians see their religion for what it is?" Everytime I think of stuff like this that seems to be yet another nail in god's coffin, Christians just pass it off as though I'm the one who is blind because I fail to see. And they always know somehow that it was God's will or what not. How do they always know the mind of God when I still question his mere existence and have been doing so for longer than many of them have been alive? And they have the nerve to say atheists are arrogant. Yeah, and the media is liberal. Stupid is not a way of life.

Delta said...

Good post AK. I've always hated the pro-life label, mostly because I know it gets many ignorant supporters who don't understand that just because people call it pro-life, doesn't mean that we've all agreed that it is pro-life. They want to be good people and help humanity, but unforunately are too stupid to look into the details, and as a result are tricked into doing something that harms society.

Aaron Kinney said...

Thanx guys!

Yea I admit that abortion and Eric Rudolph is a little off topic, but I just couldnt resist. That Rudolph guy makes me really upset, and the fact that nobody in America calls him what he really is: A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST. It had to be said somewhere.

Abortion and conception lossely aqnd faintly tie in with afterlife belief because it deals with souls and when life/consciousness starts, and since Ive dealt with the issue of souls in past posts, I figured it was just related enough to warrant posting on my blog.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Aaron, I don't think your article about Rudolph is irrelevant to the overall topic of your blog. Rudolph's anti-life actions are a consequence and expression of his worldview, which involve the wish-fantasy of an afterlife. Those who think there's a life waiting on layaway after this life, can only cheapen any value they have for this life and anyone in it, to the degree that they take such ideas seriously.

Another relevant case, in case you didn't catch the details, is conviction and subsequent sentencing of Dennis Rader, the so-called BTK serial killer (BTK stands for 'bind, torture and kill', which were this monster's standard m.o.). This savage murderer was not only a Boy Scout leader, but also president of a Lutheran congregation.

You can read about this sicko on Bloomberg news. There is even a Wikipedia entry on him.


Aaron Kinney said...

Hey Dawson, thanks for the info! Yes I was thinking about the BTK guys history with the Church and the Boy Scouts, etc... and how he called his victims "projects" or "cases" or something like that.

Totally sick. I wonder if he should be considered a Christian terrorist or just a Christian serial killer?

Anonymous said...

Are any of these 'pro-lifers' also opposed to capital punishment and the wholly unjustified sanctions/bombing/invasion of Iraq (and warfare in general)? I have yet to hear any of them comment on either of these two issues - such hypocrites!

Anonymous said...

There are wholly non-theistic and morally consistent arguments against abortion that have nothing to do with a soul, but rather have to do with the conception of when a fetus gains human rights. There are many non-theistic anti-abortionists of various flavors (although they do seem to be vastly outnumbered by the theists). Being anti-theist does not automatically make you pro-choice, and certainly not pro-unrestrained choice.

Also, you stated:

"History has shown that when individual humans are afforded more individual responsibility and self-determination, society benefits as a result."


"Self-determination, and the recognition of individual rights, always yields superior results to the alternative path: letting someone else make your choices for you."

Such broad and definitive statements absolutely demands challenge. Following the logic of your statement, society would best be served by adoption of anarchy as a governmental form. And yet, anarchy has historically not been considered a stable, prosperous form of social interaction; when it has existed (typically in the leading edge of fronteir societies or shortly after wars or disasters) it is quickly supplanted by more stable forms of society based on societal contracts of various forms. Indeed, the social contract through which the people give up some rights in return for protection of other rights is often considered one of the more important societal benefits in the history of man. Even Robert Heinlein, one of the people who popularized the notion of extreme libertarianism, recognized that it would not be a stable societal structure. While the recognition of limited human rights has led to the wonderful things you mentioned, the elimination of all restrictions on conduct has always led to the formation of a new social contract limiting those rights to some extent. As this is the central thesis of your argument, it is not persuasive.

Athana said...

Although I agree with almost everything you say, I began thinking a bit (as I read your post) about the idea that the mentally ill join Christian churches because it's one place they're (sometimes) accepted. So if a MI person joins a god church, they bomb abortion clinics and bash gays. If they're atheists, they bomb other buildings and bash other people. We need to turn to Goddess religions, in which case we'd be loving and caring for our mentally ill the way they need to be cared for -- and they wouldn't be out on the streets strewing damage everywhere.

Jim Jordan said...

HI, Aaron
I loved the Rudolph the Rednecked Terrorist ( a re-write of the Christmas jingle would be a great future post). Rudolph is a laugh, a "pro-life" murderer, but he is no Christian. You might remember when I, a Christian myself, had to edit my flippant remark that I would never hire an atheist. It was not a true statement and it was also not right. However, I must correct you this time that pro-life is not a religious term but an empirical term. No-one can say when a soul has been "rubber-stamped" and therefore they could not make such an unverifiable claim without appearing ridiculous. Science needs no help in convincing us that a life is created at conception. The information that comes together inside a fertilized egg would fill a super computer. Your argument is not "pro-life" but "pro-quality-of life". Abortion extinguishes that life. It is not some Christian romantic platitude at all. Is it not the same argument that the 1930s Germans made about those pesky money-grabbing Jews. "Life" would be better with their absence? Is it not the same argument Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe makes about the white farmers or the Klu Klux Klan about the blacks, Catholics, gays, etc? "Life" is better with less decrepids, less competiton, less mouths to feed...unless you happen to be one of those mouths. The pro-life argument is more scientific than religious, isn't it? Not surprisingly, many atheists are pro-life as well.
On your other point, you've heard my opinion on the afterlife before. Either it is or it isn't. Since I don't see any harm in believing that there is an afterlife, I believe there is. If there is no afterlife, if I've got nothing, I've got nothing to lose, as Janis Joplin said. In the worst case scenario, my afterlife-induced accountability has made me a much better man to my fellow earthlings.
Have fun writing "Rudolph the Redneck Terrorist". Always a pleasure, Jim