In two recent letters to the Herald Phil O’Connor seems to equate human life with human personhood. However there has been from the Middle Ages to this day much disagreement about when a human being becomes a human person. In February 2006, Malcolm Turnbull, a recent Catholic convert and currently Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, said in the Federal Parliament:
"It seems to me that our society has already reached a conclusion to the effect that an embryo at this very early stage is more in the nature of a potential than an actual human being and that the rights of this microscopic bundle of cells are not equal to those of a foetus, let alone a newborn baby."
Surely our more secular New Zealand society must also recognise that the worth of human life varies. Otherwise we would equate a microscopic bundle of cells with a child or adult; we would ban abortion and IVF; we would fight to save the life of every foetus no matter how horribly handicapped; we would seek to prolong the life of the terminally ill no matter how insufferable their pain. We do not follow O’Connor in any of these things because his viewpoint is absurd.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Editorial dodges responsibility
The NZ Herald editorial of 23 December insists that parents must control the use of spare human embryos created through IVF. If parental consent is a proxy for the rights of embryos, should not the law be a proxy for the decision of those parents who cannot be found? Quite clearly the missing parents belong to the camp of those who favour IVF and related medical advances, rather than to the opposing camp represented in the Herald columns recently by the Roman Catholic Church and Right to Life New Zealand. Why then does the editorial decide against the parents when it ends by parroting the words of the RC Church about respectfully allowing embryos to die?
The expression “allow to die” is an attempt to do two morally reprehensible things. Firstly, it seeks to disguise the fact that a decision is in fact being made and secondly, it tries to avoid taking any responsibility for the decision. Let us be clear: choosing not to act is just as much a decision as choosing to act. The editorial preference is not only to destroy the embryos, but also to destroy the hopes of many people who suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and other diseases which one day may be curable through the use of stem cells.
The expression “allow to die” is an attempt to do two morally reprehensible things. Firstly, it seeks to disguise the fact that a decision is in fact being made and secondly, it tries to avoid taking any responsibility for the decision. Let us be clear: choosing not to act is just as much a decision as choosing to act. The editorial preference is not only to destroy the embryos, but also to destroy the hopes of many people who suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and other diseases which one day may be curable through the use of stem cells.
Religious opposition to use of stem cells
Ken Orr of Right to Life New Zealand opposes the use of stem cells for medical research because he believes that “At the moment of conception, the embryo is endowed by his Creator with human rights, the foundation of which is the inalienable right to life”. Mr Orr is entitled to his views, but when he seeks to influence the Minister of Health and the wider community he would do well to heed the views of US President-elect Barack Obama on religion and politics:
“Democracy demands that the religiously-motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church, or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all.”
Few New Zealanders believe that a microscopic dot has the same rights as a human person. To convince the rest of us to stand in the way of medical advances Mr Orr will have to do better than his confusion of Biblical interpretation and Enlightenment values.
“Democracy demands that the religiously-motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church, or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all.”
Few New Zealanders believe that a microscopic dot has the same rights as a human person. To convince the rest of us to stand in the way of medical advances Mr Orr will have to do better than his confusion of Biblical interpretation and Enlightenment values.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Advancing religion is a charitable activity in NZ
In this morning’s NZ Herald Robert Sirico complains about the restriction on proselytising by churches while doing welfare work contracted out by the US Government. The restriction stems from the constitutional separation of church and state in the USA. He would not have the same problem in New Zealand. The Charities Act 2005 grants charitable status not only for the relief of poverty, which most people think of as charity, but - conveniently for the churches – also for the advancement of religion.
The inclusion of advancement of religion as a charitable activity will probably surprise many Kiwis, especially the one million who indicated in the 2006 census that they have no religion. In effect they are subsidising beliefs which they do not support or may even be hostile toward: because the churches pay no tax, the rest must pay more.
This state subsidy for religion has enabled it to amass a huge fortune over the years and yet it is not available to the non-religious. It is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which forbids the Government from discriminating on the basis of religion or lack of religion. How can the law of NZ contradict itself like this? Beats me. Ask your MP.
The inclusion of advancement of religion as a charitable activity will probably surprise many Kiwis, especially the one million who indicated in the 2006 census that they have no religion. In effect they are subsidising beliefs which they do not support or may even be hostile toward: because the churches pay no tax, the rest must pay more.
This state subsidy for religion has enabled it to amass a huge fortune over the years and yet it is not available to the non-religious. It is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which forbids the Government from discriminating on the basis of religion or lack of religion. How can the law of NZ contradict itself like this? Beats me. Ask your MP.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Why I'm a Bright
Names like atheist, agnostic or unbeliever are negatives. Their point of reference is not what I believe in, but what someone else believes in. If asked if I am an atheist, I will happily acknowledge that I am one. However, in reply to a more open question, I would in earlier times identify myself as a Humanist. Nowadays, like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett, I am an enthusiastic Bright.
I am a believer by the way. I believe that we live on a planet which orbits one of billions of stars in our galaxy. I believe that our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies in the universe. I believe that the earth is billions of years old. I believe that humans have evolved from “lower” forms of life. I believe that most groups of humans have come up with similar values – don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie - because they have had to deal with similar problems. I believe in the Golden Rule. In fact when I begin to think of the number of things I believe in, I am sure they must at least match the beliefs of those who are retarded by superstition.
My beliefs are based on a naturalistic worldview and that by definition makes me a bright. The new name is important to me because it is not a label stuck on me by some in-group (theists) to identify outsiders (atheists). It is a name chosen by an in-group to which I am happy to belong. In the words of Richard Dawkins: “I am a bright. You are (quite probably) a bright. Most of the people I know are brights. The majority of scientists are brights.” The name “bright” is positive and it is influenced by the idea of light and the Enlightenment. It is not intended to be arrogant but slightly provocative to attract attention.
The Brights movement is political. Its focus is not on debating theists but on demanding equal status for the naturalistic worldview. For instance the NZ Charities Act 2005 gives charitable status to an organisation that “advances religion”, even though this breaches the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act. If you want to do something about this and other privileges enjoyed by the supernatural worldview in NZ, maybe you should check out www.the-brights.net.
I am a believer by the way. I believe that we live on a planet which orbits one of billions of stars in our galaxy. I believe that our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies in the universe. I believe that the earth is billions of years old. I believe that humans have evolved from “lower” forms of life. I believe that most groups of humans have come up with similar values – don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie - because they have had to deal with similar problems. I believe in the Golden Rule. In fact when I begin to think of the number of things I believe in, I am sure they must at least match the beliefs of those who are retarded by superstition.
My beliefs are based on a naturalistic worldview and that by definition makes me a bright. The new name is important to me because it is not a label stuck on me by some in-group (theists) to identify outsiders (atheists). It is a name chosen by an in-group to which I am happy to belong. In the words of Richard Dawkins: “I am a bright. You are (quite probably) a bright. Most of the people I know are brights. The majority of scientists are brights.” The name “bright” is positive and it is influenced by the idea of light and the Enlightenment. It is not intended to be arrogant but slightly provocative to attract attention.
The Brights movement is political. Its focus is not on debating theists but on demanding equal status for the naturalistic worldview. For instance the NZ Charities Act 2005 gives charitable status to an organisation that “advances religion”, even though this breaches the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act. If you want to do something about this and other privileges enjoyed by the supernatural worldview in NZ, maybe you should check out www.the-brights.net.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
New Zealand values
We are constantly being reminded that New Zealand society is founded on Christian values. No one bothers to explain what this actually means. What are these Christian values that are so important to us and that presumably make our society different from others? Surely they are not the Ten Commandments: don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t tell lies, etc? These are the kindergarten morals that every society on the planet must share to stand any chance of surviving as a group. I must confess I struggle to imagine what the uniquely Christian values could be.
So what values are important to us in New Zealand? Watching the evening news I often feel lucky to live in a liberal democracy when I see what goes on in most of the world, for example in China or Zimbabwe. True we are not the only liberal democracy in the world but unfortunately there are all too few. Liberal democracies are by definition democratic but they also place a high value on human rights. In other words they are not tyrannies of the majority, but recognise the rights of minorities and more importantly of individuals.
So where do these values come from? Certainly not from Christianity. You would be hard-pushed to find a major Christian church which is democratic. Cults, sects and churches tend to be founded by self-appointed, charismatic leaders and their authority is usually retained by an elite, usually male. The Catholic Church, the biggest of them all, still does not allow women to join their priesthood. Throughout history the same church was no friend to free speech and is responsible for the deaths of countless dissenters. You may hear Christians claim credit for the abolition of slavery, but why did it take so long? They had the power to do something about it for most of the last two millennia.
In fact slavery was abolished during the blossoming of human rights in the 18th century Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment spawned the writings of Voltaire, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and others. Their writings in turn led to revolutions across Europe and America. It was an age which raised reason above superstition. None of the great thinkers claimed divine inspiration for their writings. The various declarations of human rights were the product of human reason alone.
It is appropriate then that the Enlightenment should inspire the name of the Brights movement which started in America in the wake of September 11. A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The Brights promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview. They try to gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. One could argue that the “Brights” of the Enlightenment have made the most significant contribution to these matters and from them come the values that underpin our society today.
So what values are important to us in New Zealand? Watching the evening news I often feel lucky to live in a liberal democracy when I see what goes on in most of the world, for example in China or Zimbabwe. True we are not the only liberal democracy in the world but unfortunately there are all too few. Liberal democracies are by definition democratic but they also place a high value on human rights. In other words they are not tyrannies of the majority, but recognise the rights of minorities and more importantly of individuals.
So where do these values come from? Certainly not from Christianity. You would be hard-pushed to find a major Christian church which is democratic. Cults, sects and churches tend to be founded by self-appointed, charismatic leaders and their authority is usually retained by an elite, usually male. The Catholic Church, the biggest of them all, still does not allow women to join their priesthood. Throughout history the same church was no friend to free speech and is responsible for the deaths of countless dissenters. You may hear Christians claim credit for the abolition of slavery, but why did it take so long? They had the power to do something about it for most of the last two millennia.
In fact slavery was abolished during the blossoming of human rights in the 18th century Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment spawned the writings of Voltaire, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and others. Their writings in turn led to revolutions across Europe and America. It was an age which raised reason above superstition. None of the great thinkers claimed divine inspiration for their writings. The various declarations of human rights were the product of human reason alone.
It is appropriate then that the Enlightenment should inspire the name of the Brights movement which started in America in the wake of September 11. A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. The Brights promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview. They try to gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. One could argue that the “Brights” of the Enlightenment have made the most significant contribution to these matters and from them come the values that underpin our society today.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Another author
Congratulations to Ian on launching a blog for NZ Brights. I am happy to accept his invitation to join him as an author.
After 30 years in the computer industry and a couple of years on an orchard I am now retired and hope to spend a bit more time on the Brights movement. I have been involved in organised humanism/rationalism/freethought in New Zealand for over twenty years now and look forward to spreading the word - "Bright" - in NZ.
Cheers,
Des
After 30 years in the computer industry and a couple of years on an orchard I am now retired and hope to spend a bit more time on the Brights movement. I have been involved in organised humanism/rationalism/freethought in New Zealand for over twenty years now and look forward to spreading the word - "Bright" - in NZ.
Cheers,
Des
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)