How Rick Perry is making a mockery of the Pro-lifers.

Note: Please don't forget to subscribe to my new blog The Liberal Diva. For the time being I will be posting both here and there, but eventually I will need to transition there.

I truly believe that the vast majority of people who claim to be pro-life have a genuine respect for the sanctity of life.  I do believe that the average Joe, on the streets and in churches praying for an end to abortions are sincere about their desire to protect human life.  I also believe that no other group is more misinformed and short sighted about this issue.  No other group is completely close minded to the actual facts about abortion and the real solutions. 
So here are the only facts I need to point out about this issue for the purpose of this blog.  First, abortions were illegal and women still got them.  So outlawing them won’t stop women from getting them if they feel they need them.  Second, there are programs out there which have proven to prevent women from getting abortions but nearly every Republican legislator out there opposes funding them (programs like education, birth control and healthcare).  Lastly, Rick Perry has been adamant about the abortion issue being a 10^th Amendment issue (the 10^th Amendment limits the rights of the Federal Government to those specifically outlined in the Constitution and is very rarely used in Supreme Court decisions because it is rather redundant).

It is this last issue I would like to emphasize.  Mainly because the 10th Amendment, when it has been asserted by states in court cases, traditionally has been used to protest federal regulations of labor and/or environmental controls.  For those of us who have been paying attention, Republicans like Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA 49) have been waging an all out war on the regulatory commissions like the EPA and the FDA.  It appears to be their goal to eradicate these commissions completely and given the pro-corporation bent of these legislators.  And Since corporations don’t get poisoned or cancer, the need for these governing bodies would appear to be completely unnecessary to them. 

So back to Mr. Perry and his “pro-life” stance (which I think should be better called a pro-corporate life stance).   Perry told ABC News,

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston.  “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, 'We’d rather not have states decide that.'”

I think that statement shows the nature of Perry’s true intent.  He’s garnering support from the anti-abortion crowd by using the emotionally charged issue of abortion and the archaic notion that if we outlaw it, we’ll save the lives of the unborn.  But as I pointed out above, that solution has already been proven to fail.  Yet why would a fiscal conservative want to spend so much money enacting and enforcing a law that wouldn’t do anything to save lives?  Why would the 10^th Amendment be so important to him? 

Because the corporate interests that fund him want those regulatory bodies to go away.  Banning abortion under the 10^th Amendment sets a precedent that corporations can then use to begin challenging labor laws, environmental laws, tariff laws, etc.  It would give carte blanche to the business world to exploit resources and people for their own financial gains.  As much as I believe in the sincerity of the average person on this issue, I truly believe in Rick Perry’s insincerity on it. 

Rick Perry is usurping the genuine desire the average person has for a better world and manipulating it so that those who already do live in a better world keep fewer and fewer people from enjoying it.  He is for protecting the life of the unborn, but when that unborn child does get born he opposes nearly all social funding for it and when that fetus grows up and commits a crime, he will allow it to be executed swiftly.  I’m still waiting to see Perry show respect for the sanctity of human life.  I do not know of one policy he has enacted that truly supports this intent. 

George Carlin used say “Republicans want live babies to be born to grow up to be dead soldiers.”  Rick Perry, it would seem, wants live babies to grow up just to be dead. 

How Atheists in America will Preserve Christianity

This weekend I was at a fantastic conference for women bloggers through BlogHer.  The keynote speaker the final day we were there was Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo.  One of the things she said struck me as outrageous.  She was listing ways in which the world has changed globally.  She listed things like a shift of economic growth and power primarily from the west to include the east; a shift from women not being very important to women being a key factor in economic growth; a shift from a world where church and state were separate to a world in which they are becoming one again.  WTF? 
Now I might be misinterpreting her intent here, but all the other examples she gave were directions that showed growth and progress.  They were going from negative to positive.  So I believe she was inferring that this was positive movement.  If she wasn't inferring approval of this shift, as CEO of a global corporation, she certainly gaffed then.  However, her gaff gives me the opportunity to point out one very key thing to Christians:  eroding separation of church and state will ultimately eradicate Christianity.
Demographic shifts in population growth in the U.S. and the rest of the world put Islam as the fastest growing religion today.  In less than 50 years it will be the worlds dominant religion and I believe that in the United States that it will be the same.  Research in this area is difficult, because it is usually funded by groups with a vested interest in a certain outcome.  But nevertheless, across the board all surveys show that Islam is gaining members and Christianity is losing members.  Regardless of the timeline, it's only a matter of when. 
When this happens, the "gains" that Christians think they are getting by homogenizing religion and government and legislating according to the precepts of their religion, will be the very precedent that Islam will be able to use to enforce Sharia law at a secular level when it becomes the dominant religion.
Here's the argument: we live in a country that is based upon democratic principles and as such if we were to repeal the portion of the 1st Amendment (and even with the freaky five that are on the Supreme Court now and the asinine way they have been ruling lately I hardly doubt that would truly come to pass, but nevertheless, there are those people who would like it to be that way and I never thought they would completely rule against our political system they way they have, so anything is possible) it would mean that the religion with the most adherents would be the dominant religion.  When that religion becomes Islam, Sharia law will have the precedent it needs to become the law of the land.  Upon that happening, it would be possible for Christianity to be outlawed altogether. 
Now it's important to note that this is the worst case scenario and fairly far fetched- but then so was the collapse of our economy and the downgrading of our credit rating and both of those things have come to pass too.  When idiots like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are out there displaying their Christian flag higher than their American flag, I think we have much to worry about.  And I think it's important to note that I don't mean to demean or in anyway diminish Islam.  Sharia law is fine for people who chose to adhere to it personally for themselves.  It becomes a problem when they want to impose it on others (even members of their own faith). 
Which leads me to the conclusion of my premise.  Atheists, agnostics, skeptics and apathists like myself, are the ones who are best suited to keep that precedent from occurring.  By not adhering to any religious belief we are the ones who will be best suited to make sure that all religions are treated equally.  We are the ones who will protect all religions equally.  By allowing those who are free from religion to legislate, we are really protecting those who most benefit from freedom of religion.