Will ereading devices like the Kindle and Nook kill bookstores as we presently know them? It’s an interesting question, is it not? It’s completely possible too. I am a serious aficionado of books, but my last two major relocation projects have softened my once staunch stance against the idea of electronic books. I used to be a die-hard defender of the romantic idea of a physical codex that I could actually rescue from its dusty and dormant existence on my unfinished pine book shelf, but if I ever have to move my massive collection of codices again, it will be too soon. I love collecting books; I hate moving them! The thought of owning and storing thousands of electronic books on a single hand-held device is an alluring one, for sure. So, I can’t help but imagine my future home library being stored on a Kindle or Nook or one of the many other ereading devices that are rapidly being introduced to the book buying world.

There are many other potential motives for the murder of the physical book store as we know it.

The most obvious would be profit. Bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders could seriously streamline their overhead costs by simply setting up a virtual warehouse wherein people simply create online accounts and download their books electronically. You know, sort of like what Apple did to the music industry with iTunes. I haven’t visited a record store in years! Then again, they too may have to deal with peer-to-peer file sharing pirates like ISO HUNT and Pirate Bay. That might be a problem.

A slightly less obvious but more important motive would be the stewardship of environmental resources. It takes a hell of a lot of paper to print all of those books. It takes a lot of fuel to ship them to bookstores. It takes even more fuel to drive to the bookstore to purchase books once they arrive. I can’t begin to imagine how much paper is wasted when we are done reading our books and discard them in less than responsible ways. Electronic books would seriously reduce our environmental footprint. Think about it for a moment. What if we moved all of our books, newspapers, magazines, catalogs, and periodicals to the electronic realm? What would that look like? How would it change our everyday world? I think the answers to these questions should inspire us all enough to let the Kindle and Nook slowly kill our physical bookstores.

So, will new technological devices like Kindle and Nook actually do it? Will they deal the final blow to bookstores as we know them? Perhaps. Then again, people do cherish the romantic idea of the physical codex and the treasured experience of turning actual pages while curled up on a sofa in front of the fireplace. I’m not totally sure these folk will let their bookstores die, even if the benefit of their passing actually outweighs the detriment. We shall see. I think we will know for sure in five years time.

Me? I’m going electronic soon, because I hate moving my library.

Related posts:

The word “heretic,” like so many other words in the English language, has a rich etymology that is often discarded to make room for whatever popular and immediately available cultural idioms or connotations exist. It’s a sad phenomenon, because some words, like “heretic,” lose all of their positive historical definitions and become purely negative rhetorical weapons wielded by those who never gave things like words much thought anyway. It’s sad, as are the individuals and groups who consciously perpetuate such nonsense.

Heretic: “…from Greek hairetikos, able to choose, factious, from hairetos, chosen, from haireisthai, to choose.”

Have you considered your religion? I’m guessing you must have, because you are a practicing member of a religion, right? Practice follows choice, at least in the real world of living and experiences. Said differently, we first examine, consider, and then we actually choose to become participants before we initiate devotion and practice, right? Well, I hope that’s the way we do things, especially when it comes to doing things like religion and spirituality. It would be pretty sketchy, otherwise. If we’d flip that little chronology and approach the whole thing backwards, we would be a backwards sort people, right? I mean, would you really approach participation and/or membership with devotion and practice first and then follow up with choice, consideration, and finally examination? I would hope not! We should examine and consider and choose first, and practice later. We should look before we leap, right? In other words, we should choose!

That said, I’m not at all suggesting that our first look and consideration of anything – especially religion and spirituality – will be an exhaustive one. There is always much more to learn and experience in community then first meets the eye, and we will go on learning and experiencing as we practice our spirituality within a community. It’s not a “one-and-done” sort of thing I am suggesting, at all. I am suggesting this: We can and should take a big, broad look at whatever religion, faith system, or spirituality we are considering because each one of us knows what we are ultimately looking for in a community and if we think that we may have found what we are looking for then we can confidently move forward into it and explore, learn, and experience with honesty, excitement, and safety. That’s the goal, right?

I am also suggesting that religion and spirituality is not a “one-size-fits-all.” You may land in a place that doesn’t fit well at all! Landing like that is not a pleasant experience, trust me. It takes a lot of time and energy to explore, examine, and consider religion and spirituality; it takes even more time and energy to participate in religious or spiritual community. If you  have ever spent all that energy, and then realized that it was spent in a place that isn’t for you, then you know what I’m talking about, right? Landing in a place that doesn’t fit is not a pleasant experience! So, taking a big, broad look at what you are getting yourself into first is an extremely healthy exercise. I am suggesting that you take some time to consider yourself and your needs, wants, values, and dreams before you take the leap into religion and spirituality. I would also challenge you to consider why you have the needs, wants, values, and dreams that you find yourself having. It’s good to think about all of these things, especially if you are considering a religious or spiritual community.

I, for example, know full well that my religious or spiritual expression is most edifying in a religious or spiritual community that offers the following:

1. Freedom of Religious Expression.
2. Tolerance/Acceptance of Religious Ideas.
3. Tolerance/Acceptance of Personal Choice and Individual Decisions.
4. A Non-exhaustive Quest for Truth that is Liberated from the Authoritarian Spirit.
5. The Unity of Experience (Faith + Knowledge + Secular + Sacred).
6. The Recognition of the Intrinsic Worth and Dignity of all People.
7. Ethical Involvement in Society and Culture.
8. Honest Expressions of Love and Compassion.
9. Democratic Process.
10. Open and Embracing Community, Organized enough to not only be available for those who are search for it, but also to make a real difference in the village and world.

Those are the ten things I need to see before I jump. I have reached a place in my life and journey wherein I can say that if any of these things are lacking, I will invest neither my time, nor my energy into it. It’s just not worth it. I will choose to keep searching until I find what I am looking for …

Incidentally, the above ten “prerequisites,” if you will, were inspired by years of personal journey and a little book titled A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism by John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church. The list found in the book itself was written by Unitarian Universalist minister David Rankin and represents “ten beliefs commonly held by Unitarian Universalists.”

Finally, let me just say one very, very important thing: If any religious or spiritual community frowns upon your desire to examine, consider, and explore before you choose to participate, then run. Run fast. They are a twisted sort of cult that cares more about perpetuating their authoritarian spirit than they do about your personal ability to use your God-given brain. You can choose! you have every right to think and then choose.

Be heretics!

Related posts:

Seriously? The following story confuses and frustrates me on so many levels. Why are we still wrestling with this issue? Why is it still a question? Why are people, like Aris Fokas, who have shown that they are extremely competent and called, dismissed from their duties because of their sexual orientation? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is wrong. Period. It should be repealed.

The Rev. Aris Fokas’s story appeared this morning in a local Lancaster, PA newspaper. A portion of the article follows. You can read the full article at Lancaster Online.

Surgeons went to work on five Marines mangled by a roadside bomb.

Multiple blasts near Ramadi, west of Baghdad, had torn off the legs of one soldier. Another Marine required amputation of both legs.

Though the time for prayers would come, Army National Guard chaplain Aris Fokas saw the immediate need in the operating room was for an extra set of hands.

He offered his as doctors and nurses labored late into the night in December 2005.

Fokas, of Lancaster, got busy retrieving medical supplies, hanging intravenous drips and hand pumping blood through a warmer.

When the need for those tasks waned, Fokas slipped back into the role of chaplain. He spoke and prayed with the wounded and with their buddies, who paced and waited for news.

It was one trying night among many Fokas experienced during an 18-month deployment in Iraq.

Fokas, a United Church of Christ minister, joined the Pennsylvania Army National Guard in 2003. He was 39 years old and felt called to serve his country by pastoring to soldiers on the front lines.

Fokas warmed to the challenges, and many colleagues came to admire his professionalism and humanity.

But now that he’s home, Fokas, 46, is facing a challenge that threatens his future with the military.

An officer has accused Fokas of telling him he is gay.

Although Fokas denies any such disclosure, a commander at Fort Indiantown Gap has ordered an inquiry.

“It is the policy of the United States Army … that homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” Lt. Col. David W. Wood informed Fokas in a memorandum. “Therefore … an investigation is in process to determine if separation action is warranted.”

Fokas, for now, remains in the Guard, but his chaplain duties are suspended pending the investigation’s findings.

Under the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” more than 13,000 service men and women have been dismissed for being gay or lesbian.

When are we all going to stop making who people are an issue? That’s all I have to say concerning this ridiculous issue. We should all be better than this … much better.

We can start being better by repealing the ridiculous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and giving Aris Fokas’s job and spiritual calling back.

Related posts:

At any rate, my name popped up in one of his very recent diatribes. I really don’t mind my name popping up so long as it is attached to accurate information. I’m sure Robin did not intend to misconstrue historical events involving me, and perhaps my own handling of these past events did nothing to clarify issues that are now being misconstrued. So, I simply want to say the following concerning a recent post published by Robin titled “Are Unitarian Universalists Fluffy And “Less Than Rational“? Is Classical Unitarian Christianity Corpse-Cold Unitarian Dead In The UU World?.”

The specific part(s) of Robin’s post that I want to address read as follows:

Someone going by the pseudonym Thesauros seems to think so in a comment posted to the “Classical Unitarian Christianity” post of former Christian UU seminarian Shawn Anthony’s Lo-Fi Tribe blog … FWIW There seem to be very few “classical” Christian Unitarians, or indeed Christian Universalists, remaining in The UU Movement these days. I know for a fact that the UUA lost several Christian UU seminarians in the last couple of years because they felt “less than welcome” within the UU fold.

I would not be surprised if readers naturally associate me with those seminarians who might have left because they felt unwelcome, given the fact that Robin’s reference of me as a “former Christian UU seminarian” was immediately followed by a strong statement concerning “several Christian UU seminarians leaving the UUA because they felt less than welcome.” I would like to separate myself from that sort of association. The truth of the matter is that I was the unwelcoming one. I was totally welcomed by nearly every Unitarian Universalist I encountered, regardless of their faith center. There were one or two locals who pulled some really questionable antics on me in effort to pursue their own agenda, but that’s an unfortunate feature in every organization. Overall, however, me and my “Kingdom of God” expression were received with open arms. When I was a candidate before the R.S.C.C. at Union Theological Seminary in NYC, I was asked, point blank, to describe my faith center. I said, without hesitation or fear, “Jesus of Nazareth and His Kingdom of Equals.” I received a round of applause. I’d call that welcoming! Right? I was the recipient of this sort of welcome on numerous occasions, in a variety of settings.

Truth is, as I said, I was the one who refused the welcome and returned it with a totally uncharitable spirit of unwelcome. It was all me. Why? I was struggling to make sense of what I was experiencing at CPE (Hospice, Emergency, and Trauma Wards). I was going through an existential crisis of sorts and did what most people who get lost do, I reverted back to my familiar and seemingly sturdy Evangelical roots (it was, at the time, the only thing I had in my life’s backpack! Sorry!). I put on my old Evangelicalism and with it came a very uncharitable spirit of unwelcome. I was baptized in a spirit of nasty. The worst part of the story – I served that unwelcome to the very people who were welcoming me with open arms and applause. I am so sorry for that …

To make a very long story much shorter, my existential angst slowly wore off, and as it did my inner progressive slowly awoke and I once again found myself in an Evangelical denomination that did not appreciate me or my message. I’d argue to this day that both me and my message are closer to what the New Testament points towards anyway, but that’s a pissing match for another urinal. Right now, I’m simply stating as clearly and succinctly as I can that I was totally welcomed – with open arms – by UUs. It was I who rejected their welcome and I returned it with an uncharitable spirit of unwelcome. I apologize to all to whom I served that nonsense.

I hope that clarifies the issue, I sincerely apologize for any confusion I perpetuated.

NOTE: I would also not identify as a Christian UU. I do have a deep, deep appreciation for Jesus and His Kingdom of Equals, and the rich and important history of the Unitarian and Universalist movements, but over the last few years my growing understanding of Jesus’ big message, postmodernism, human religiousness, sacred lit, culture, and the importance of myth has broadened my personal spiritual horizons. My vision is big. It’s much bigger than it was three years ago. It includes Classical Unitarianism and much, much, much more.

Peace, all.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Tufts University Chaplain Scotty McLennan, in a book titled Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning, offers his readers a sort of faith stage checklist. My own evolving religious experience tells me that while lists of this sort are neither exhaustive, nor universal, they are fairly accurate, and at the very least they are good guides that challenge us to practice deeper self-awareness, if nothing else. Practicing more self-awareness is always a good thing.

What faith stage are you in? Maybe the more important question should be: “What faith stage do you want to be in?”

Stage One (Magic)
1.) Is your world full of spirits and demons?
2.) Are fairy tales your favorite kind of literature?
3.) Do you think God makes everything happen, for good and bad?

Stage Two (Reality)
1.) Do you spend a lot of time trying to determine what’s real and what’s not?
2.) Are scriptures true in a concrete and literal sense, rather than being stories and maxims that may or may not be real?
3.) Do you feel you can influence God’s actions by being good?

Stage Three (Dependence)
1.) Do you have an important peer group or leader who is primarily responsible for shaping your faith?
2.) Is it important to you to understand and follow religious doctrine and moral rules?
3.) Is your main image of God that of a perfect parent?

Stage Four (Independence)
1.) Is your spiritual life unique and personal?
2.) Do you often find yourself wanting to demystify scripture?
3.) Do you think of God or Ultimate Reality primarily as an impersonal force or spirit (or as nonexistent)?

Stage Five (Interdependence)
1.) Do you find a spiritual community important to you at the same time that you maintain your own distinctive faith?
2.) Do you experience spiritual power in religious symbols and myths that you can also analyze objectively?
3.) Do you conceive of God or Ultimate Reality both as a person and as an impersonal force?

Stage Six (Unity)
1.) Do you sense yourself in community with religiously committed people of any and all traditions?
2.) Is your consciousness ego-free and beyond paradox and ambiguity?
3.) Do you often feel that God or divine spirit is in everything and that everything exists in God or divine Spirit?

Work Cited: Mclennan, Scotty. Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning. New York: Harperone, 2001. Print.

Related posts:

Related posts:

I just found an old essay living an an even older hard drive that has been buried under a dusty pile of books in the attic. I wrote this essay way back in January of 2004. The topic: Voluntary Euthanasia. I’m not even sure I still hold the same views and opinions that I held concerning Euthanasia, but it is interesting to re-read old personal expressions and gauge just how much one’s expression has changed over time.

Note: My style has improved over the years too. I have neither the energy, nor the desire to edit the following essay properly, so it appears just as I wrote in 2004. Do forgive my past addiction to ellipses, mechanical verbiage, making up words and general wordiness. I exhaust myself reading myself in my former style. I apologize in advance.

=======================================================

A at the Request of B, for the Sake of B: A Voluntary Euthanasian Ethic
Copyright 2004 Progressive Ink!, All Rights Reserved

Introduction

One’s right or desire to die would, at first, seem to be a seriously private matter decided solely by the one actually living an evidently less than desirable existence. We, however, live in a world wherein personal ideological agendas and their espousers are programmatically fused to one another (religion and politics mostly) which results only in a terribly biased and non-critical cloud’s non-intellectual muddling of issues intrinsically linked to pure reason, rationality, and the search for a proper way to aid the suffering of fellow human beings. In other words, personal ideology should not be used to prevent a person, who is suffering terminally, from personally choosing their own ideology which is organized with an option to freely end his or her suffering. [1]

Perhaps a more succinct explanation of this thesis could be derived from the wonderfully popular and very old proverb, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Basically, what we are arguing here is not one person’s right to die vs. another’s right to disagree with the choice; ultimately lying behind these side issues are matters concerning the existence or non-existence of one’s ability to freely choose their own “ideology.” One side, most often the religious side, freely admits to choosing, assimilating, and living by their own ideology. This choice was, as 100% of those who made it will elatedly attest, ‘a personal one.’ The right to die, however, as far as the majority of religious adherents are concerned, is not a personal choice but a closed corporate decision applicable to open society only after it is stretched across the moral suppositions of their own ideological framework – as reasonable or non-reasonable as that framework may actually be…in light of reason, logic, rationality, and the many advances made in the sciences, arts, and humanities since the time this framework was established. The truth of the matter, however, is that the choice to end one’s life to end terminal suffering is as personal as the decision to adopt a religious ideology. If a human being cannot, according to religious ideology, freely choose to make a personal decision to end his or life an terminal suffering, then it would stand to reason that a devoted religious adherent would also not be free to personally choose to adopt his or her present ideology…which ironically now seems to implode upon itself as a non-universal and contradictory house of cards. [2]

Obviously, any reader possessing a hint of the abilities necessary for deduction could easily infer this essay’s overall attitude regarding the expediency of euthanasia for those fellow human beings who are suffering terribly with terminal illnesses and desire greatly to put an end to their suffering. The essay’s thesis, however, still requires a comprehensive overview of the issue itself, its supporters, and its antagonists, if it will indeed be considered to be authentically solidified…in spite of the paper’s early positional admittance.

Euthanasia

The term euthanasia is defined broadly as, “the beneficent timing or negation of the death of a sick person; more narrowly, the killing of a human being on the grounds the he is better off dead.” [3] Popularly, the term has been euphemized – most likely for the sakes of those who are easily offended by the coldness of scientific sounding terms – by the phrase “mercy killing.”

Two major divisions exist within this expansive definition: 1) Active euthanasia and 2) Voluntary euthanasia. The first subdivision, active euthanasia, usually involves the taking of a person’s – usually a medical patient – life. This can occur passively, i.e., removing the means (life support) by which the patient’s “life” is prolonged as a result of an expert estimation (MD) regarding the possibilities of the patient’s present and future state of well being and/or health. The distinction made between active and passive euthanasia usually involves a theoretical guide for practical medical decisions regarding terminally ill patients, i.e., intending the patient’s death and pursuing other goals, such as a temporary relief from agony and distress, while being consciously and professionally aware that the patient is going to die sooner than later. The second subdivision, voluntary euthanasia, is euthanasia with the patient’s approval. Involuntary euthanasia is the killing of a person who is not competent to make the decision for him or herself. An example of this would be a parent(s) who makes the decision, for the sake of his or her child, who, it should be noted, has zero brain activity as a result of an ATV accident, to unplug the life support machine.

The theological/non-theological debate so intrinsic to euthanasia has stemmed from that which the aforementioned definition ultimately points us toward – that is, the giving and taking of life. Do human beings have the right to give up a life – as in the case of a terminally ill patient – or to take a life – as in the case of licensed PhDs? Again, as stated in the essay’s introduction, the Judeo-Christian’s theological argument has been assembled upon logical inconsistencies which consequently render it a non-universal as a result of the occurrence of self-contradiction within its presupposed ideological schematic’s base; a base – it should be noted – which is unarguably perpetuated by the personal choice of ideology but then somehow becomes an ideology prohibiting not only the personal choice of ideology, but also any authentic availability of this choice being made under the default human circumstance without divine punishment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that this essay argues that the implementation of any personal ideology (which is exactly what the Judeo-Christian theological position is) to prevent a person, who is suffering terminally, from personally choosing their own ideology which is organized with an option to freely end his or her suffering, is hypocritical and unethical.

A Case Study

A true story, illustrative of the difficulty and practicality of this issue, can be found in story of Betty Rollin – the Author of “Last Wish” – and her mother, who was in the process of dying from ovarian cancer which unfortunately had spread throughout her body. Betty’s mother, speaking to her daughter, says:

“I’ve had a wonderful life, but now it’s over, or it should be. I’m not afraid to die, but I am afraid of this illness, what it’s doing to me….There’s never any relief from it now. Nothing but nausea and this pain….There won’t be any more chemotherapy. There’s no treatment anymore. So what happens to me now? I know what happens. I’ll die slowly….I don’t want that….Who does it benefit if I do slowly? If it benefits my children I’d be willing. But it’s not going to do you any good….There’s no point in a slow death, none. I’ve never liked doing things with no point. I’ve got to end this.” [4]

A comparison/contrast of the strengths and weaknesses of the two ideological positions – as outline earlier in this essay’s thesis – and their cumulative effects will now be used to critically examine the expediency or detriment of euthanasia in the case of Betty Rollin and her cancer stricken mother.

The Weaknesses of Impediment by Personal Ideology

The majority of dissent, political lobbying, and financial support against the possible legalization of euthanasia in cases concerning the terminally ill are wrought by the conservative right and their enormous Judeo-Christian base. The Lambeth Conference, a gathering of all the Bishops of the World Wide Anglican Communion, for example, has taken a strong stand against euthanasia, arguing that it should not be “permitted in civil legislation” and that “those who advocate euthanasia show little awareness of the Christian experience that people may be redeemed and transfigured through their suffering.” Archbishop Hollingworth, speaking on behalf of conference proceedings, goes on to say, “Those who advocate euthanasia show little awareness of the Christian experience that people may be redeemed and transfigured through their suffering.” [5]

The Catholic Church, in an officially released document, shares the same sentiments:

“A request for death on the part of those in grave suffering — as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show — is almost always the last expression of the patient’s heart-felt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment, two elements which are sometimes lacking in today’s hospitals. The consideration already proposed by the Charter for Health Care Workers is consequently truer than ever: ‘”the sick person who feels surrounded by a loving human and Christian presence does not give way to depression and anguish as would be the case if one were left to suffer and die alone and wanting to be done with life. This is why euthanasia is a defeat for the one who proposes it, decides it and carries it out”‘ (n. 149). The condemnation of euthanasia expressed by the Encyclical Evangelism vitae since it is a ‘”grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person”‘ (n. 65), reflects the impact of universal ethical reasoning (it is founded on natural law) and the elementary premise of faith in God the Creator and protector of every human person.” [6]

Finally, the Massachuesetts Council of Churches, which is composed of a broad crossection of individual Christian Churches belonging to much larger denominations – African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, American Baptist Churches, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of the New Jerusalem, Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Covenant Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Society of Friends, Salvation Army, and the United Methodist Church – fall in line with the aforementioned:

“Like death, suffering also poses a paradox. On the one hand, Christians do not enjoy suffering, any more than Christ did. It is difficult to sustain. We pray for relief from suffering, for ourselves and for others. In fact, Christians should work to eliminate suffering, especially suffering that is a result of sin; for example, sins related to poverty, oppression, racism, or abuse. On the other hand, Christians acknowledge the place of suffering in our discipleship. We are disciples of the ‘”head of our faith”‘ who ‘”in place of the joy that was set before him, suffered the Cross”‘ (Heb. 12:2) We know that God suffers with us and for us. Thus it is not only possible, but also desirable, to have a ‘”good death.”‘ In such circumstances, the dying person gives thanks for the gift of life and its blessings, seeks forgiveness and reconciliation when amends need to be made, and places him/herself in the care of God. Christians believe that death leads to full life with God. It is a prelude to new life. The redemptive death of Christ becomes the paradigm of acceptance with the promise of a new beginning. We must learn to die to self in order to be fully alive.” [7]

Clearly, it is safe to say that the arguments given by our world’s largest Christian churches are not valid reasons to prevent one from legally obtaining the right to die and prevent terminal suffering. The woman in our case study asked a poignant question, “Who does it benefit if I do slowly?” The answer she would receive from these religious organizations and there leadership hierarchy would have simply been, “God.” At the deepest and most logical level, that is what their answer amounts to. If the woman looked at their answers shallowly, she would find slightly more sadistic, unethical, and inhumane answers, such as: suffering is a necessary part of your redemption; it is a door to human companionship; it may be a result of your sin; your life is not your own, it is God’s and he does as he would please; God is suffering cancer with you…vicariously; God is your protector; or, and no it is not hyperbole, Behold! Your transfiguration is at hand!

There are more than a few problems with the position represented by these Christian leaders of Churches. First of all, much of their primary argumentation and/or suggestions are based on a 2000 plus year old religion. There is nothing detrimental about a 2000 year old religion; there is, however, much to be discussed regarding a humanity 2000 years older than the authors of the religion. Old religion not properly understood within the thoroughly naturalistic social processes that supported it and acted as the sole source for its evolution (yes, even religion evolves), becomes dated obstructions to the continuation of social and human progress and improvement (yes, these too evolve). It would be safe to say, given the quoted remarks (God suffers cancer with you, for example), religion often occupies the obstructive position – unless one can actually prove “God” is suffering cancer with our case study’s suffering mother and, therefore, she should consequently endure the agony until she succumbs to the inevitable death awaiting her anyway. Many advances in the humanities, the sciences, and the arts, have also exposed human religion to be a purely human construct. Unless the proponents of the above arguments can actually prove these advances to be mistaken, they should not prevent the woman in our case study the right to die with dignity – it is unethical in light of contemporary understanding. Secondly, much of their secondary arguments are derived from their views of Scripture. Scripture is fine as a devotional instrument of faith. In fact, many Christian theologians differentiate between faith and history as they take an apologetical stance against modern interpretations of the Bible. There is nothing wrong with such a stance – except when the same theologians attempt to implement the differentiation into areas of our reality that are indeed a product of history – namely the humanities, sciences, and arts (medical). Nothing within these fields stake a claim of supernatural revelation; the advances here are products of the evolution of thought and consciousness – a purely historical and time-trapped naturalistic phenomenon. One need not to conjure up enough faith to understand that human beings are much more aware of reality in the year 2004 than in 8000 B.C.E. Matters of faith and devotion, therefore, and according to the religious theologians themselves, have no authentic place here. How could they? How can that which is based upon faith and not history be relevant to that which is based upon history and not faith? What does one have to offer the other; if they do offer something to one another, then why the differentiation for a Scriptural apologetic in the first place? It’s one or the other…religious espousers cannot hold both. Scripture, therefore, cannot be a part of a legitimate argument against euthanasia. Finally, the espousers and members of the religious system represented by these Churches have become so by choosing to freely adopt an ideological schematic which required a personal choice. This schematic is not credible as it folds into itself as a result of its self contradictory nature regarding the same human capability they forbid others to use…namely an autonomy based upon personal choice. How can an ideological schematic be perpetuated by an autonomy based upon personal choice and deny it to others simultaneously? It cannot. The entire schematic base of their religion, therefore, must be declared less than a universal truth (which would render it useless in light of its own claims), or religious espousers will have to locate their desire to thwart euthanasia in there own personal moralistic plans and desires – which are intrinsically based/derived in/from the same source. Either way, the churches declaring their opposition toward euthanasia for the terminally ill will have to do the unthinkable sooner or later – look for non-theological arguments against it. Suffering human beings deserve more than a metaphysical guess or abstract religious devotional theory if they are going to be forced to suffer through the inhuman distress of bones so fragile they break when suddenly moved, uncontrollable nausea and vomiting, slow starvation, uncontrollable bowel and bladder functions, breathing difficulties, and/or crippling diseases…just to name a few of the more obvious.

It is for these reasons that the ideological schematic perpetuating the aforementioned Churches theological polemic against euthanasia cannot be used as a platform to thwart a terminally ill person’s right to die. The problematic issues involved in the ideology are to numerous for it be otherwise – ethically speaking.

The Case for Voluntary Euthanasia

Betty Rollin’s mother is suffering from terminal cancer and treatment is no longer available to her. She is going to die soon, but only after enduring much emotional, physical, and relational pain and agony. There is…this time…no chance for recovery. In a world where churches offer nothing of value for this mother, a purely humanistic response grounded in reason and rationality should follow.

First of all, cases such as Betty Rollin’s mother should be approached with the suffering individual as priority number one. The situation must be extremely difficult for Betty Rollin (her daughter) to accept. She, however, must not fall victim to the selfishness of forcing a suffering person to endure pain and agony longer than necessary to appease her own sense of virtue, morality, emotion, or even love. A terminally ill person requires objectivity to his or her plight; subjective laden requests – be they based in personal virtue, morality, emotion, or love – has no authentic function in cases such as this – except to lead one to do that which is authentically in the best interests of the one suffering. To force the mother to endure for some sake of the daughter is selfish beyond belief. A determined objectivity concerning the one suffering terminally is the prerequisite for an honest and authentically objective evaluation of the scenario. Secondly, the wishes of the mother should be taken into serious consideration. One does not proclaim their wish to die easily. She obviously loves her daughter and would prefer not to be leaving her so soon. The mother, however, after weighing the options, considers – and she seems to be absolutely competent – a speedy end to her suffering (death) to be the superior and most dignified choice. She already has endured much pain and agony while holding on to the glimmer of hope that could have been her total recovery. She, however, has been told by PhDs that the hope is gone and treatment is impossible. All that remains is increased and elevating suffering and death. The mother would rather end it now then travel the road into increased and ultimately insurmountable difficulties. When the mother’s argument is taken into serious consideration her request to die can be heard as a request for mercy. The mercy argument is as follows: It is inhumane to keep the patient alive if he has had severe pain or prolonged suffering. There is not one objective reason or rational argument available to the one who would not act with the mercy the mother desires. Thirdly, the terminally ill patient’s right in self-determination should be respected when all are in agreement that hope and treatment are forgone conclusions. Terminally ill patients have the right to decide whether they live or die.

A purely humanistic approach toward the wishes of our case study’s terminally ill mother would, obviously, find its fulcrum with the terminally ill woman herself. What are her wishes now that hope and treatment are not an option? Is she competently making this decision? Is the remaining months of her life marked with increased pain and debilitating suffering? Would the human or ethical action be to relieve her from this torturous sentence? Yes…Yes…Yes…and Yes. When the ultimate decision regarding this mother’s right to die, however, is in the hands of others, it would be greatly beneficial to our world’s naturalistic social processes if the decision was not clouded by the fog of freely chosen personal ideologies which prohibit the act of freely choosing ideologies – even if they are quite superior.

Conclusion

Actually, by adhering to this contradictory stance regarding autonomy in personal choice, the Judeo-Christian theological argument used against euthanasia – as stated earlier – renders itself a non-universal. Had it (the Judeo-Christian ideology) given people that which it itself is founded upon – personal autonomy based upon personal choice – its inherent ideological schematic would also in fact be considered a universal. Devoted followers, I think it safe to say, care more about moralizing than they do about universal truth. After all, who can really say why it bothers a moralist if someone watches, let’s say, a rated “R” movie. Does it affect them personally, spiritually, or on an individual personal level? No – not even in the slightest. One’s watching of a rated “R” movie does nothing to the moralist’s personal, spiritual, or even metaphysical condition. Yet, the moralist, it seems, will lose sleep unless “A” acts in a manner satisfying to “B,” because “B” acts in this manner…so it must be good for “A.” But…if “A’s” watching of a rated “R” movie “B” doesn’t approve of has absolutely no affect upon “B,” then what is “B’s” problem? In short…the ideology. “B” is ruled by an ideology rather than compassion (authentic compassion) for humanity and rationality derived from advances made in the sciences, humanities, and the arts. In other words, “B” is a serious obstruction to “A” and honestly believes he can “save” “A” from something as harmless a good film guided by a superb plot and what is most likely a master storyteller. This may seem a harmless illustration of individual’s whose ideology is not compatible with rated “R” moving stories. This, however, is where it begins… I, personally, would prefer someone who was intellectually capable of understanding a rated “R” movie to be the one who was forcing me to suffer through the excruciating pain and miserable agony of an inevitable death… a mere 9 months away.

- Works Cited -

Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Communications, Lambeth Conference. Lambeth Conference Takes Stand against Euthanasia. Lambeth Conference Communications, 1998. Accessed 02.22. 2004. Website. Available from http://www.wfn.org/1998/08/msg00099.html.

D’Avolio, Gerry. Ecumenical Statement against Assisted Suicide. Massachusetts Catholic Conference Press Release, 2001. Accessed 02.22. 2004. Available from http://www.macathconf.org/ecumenical_statement_against_ass.htm.

Life, Pontifical Academy for. Respect for the Dignity of the Dying. Pontifical Academy for Life, 2000. Accessed 02.22. 2004. Website. Available from http://lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_28dignityofdying.html.

Rollin, Betty. Last Wish. New York, N.Y.: Warner Books, 1985.

Wolf, Elizabeth. Merriam-Webster Online. Michael Guzzi, 2004. Accessed 02.22 2004. Website. Available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/.

- End Notes -

[1] Voluntary Euthanasia is a personal choice: Webster defines personal as: 1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL < personal ambition > < personal financial gain > 2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly < a personal interview > 3 : relating to the person or body 4 : relating to an individual or an individual’s character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner < a personal insult > 5 a : being rational and self-conscious b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction < a personal devil > 6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property < a personal estate > 7 : denoting grammatical person, see: Elizabeth Wolf, Merriam-Webster Online [Website] (Michael Guzzi, 2004, accessed 02.22 2004); available from http://www.merriam-webster.com/.

[2] …that is, only if one accepts the concept/idea of absolute or universal truth. If the Christian ideology finds it catalyst in the personal autonomy of choice, which is unarguably utilized by the would be devotee prior to his or her actually assimilating him or herself into its subsidiary ideology (in this case, a Christian ideology dependent upon personal choice), then, it would stand to reason that the autonomy of personal choice existed prior to and independent of the ideology itself. If this autonomy of personal choice is a universal truth then it cannot be somehow eliminated via the ideology it in fact made possible (especially if it existed prior to the adoption of the ideology); it also cannot be used to prevent itself at a later date. If personal autonomy of choice is not a universal truth then the Christian ideology would be cut down at its origin – that is personal and free choice. Ideology, therefore, cannot be used to prevent the acceptance, assimilation, or practice of another’s ideology – no matter how much one dislikes it.

[3] Robert Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 292.

[4] Betty Rollin, Last Wish (New York, N.Y.: Warner Books, 1985), 149-150.

[5] Lambeth Conference Communications, Lambeth Conference Takes Stand against Euthanasia [Website] (Lambeth Conference Communications, 1998, accessed 02.22. 2004); available from http://www.wfn.org/1998/08/msg00099.html.

[6] Pontifical Academy for Life, Respect for the Dignity of the Dying [Website] (Pontifical Academy for Life, 2000, accessed 02.22. 2004); available from http://lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_28dignityofdying.html.

[7] Gerry D’Avolio, Ecumenical Statement against Assisted Suicide(Massachusetts Catholic Conference Press Release, 2001, accessed 02.22. 2004); available from http://www.macathconf.org/ecumenical_statement_against_ass.htm.

Related posts:

I recently had to explain the title “Unitarian Universalist Christian.” It was an interesting conversation, to be sure, and I found myself explaining both classical expressions of Unitarianism (think early American, New England expressions of the faith) and more contemporary developments within the Unitarian Universalist Association (think 1961 merger of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America). Personally, I identify with aspects of both these days. I deeply appreciate elements of the classical expression, and I resonate with much that is advanced by the contemporary iteration as a result of my growing understanding of postmodernism, human religiousness, sacred lit, culture, and the importance of myth. Then again, I’m always curious and changing and growing and evolving too, and perhaps that’s the main source of the aforementioned resonance.

At any rate, as I explained classical Christian Unitarianism to my friend, I was reminded of the challenge it inherently offers people of faith, and that’s a good thing. If you are totally unfamiliar with the expression, the following explanation is as good an introduction as can be found.

Classical UU Christians

Finding the dogmatism of rigid orthodoxy to be unacceptable, and the emptiness of pure secularism (or “trendy liberalism”) to be unsatisfying, these UUs affirm the liberal Christianity of classical Unitarianism and classical Universalism.

Theirs is a low-keyed Christianity that focuses on the human life and ethical teachings of Jesus. They see doctrines such as the Trinity and the Atonement as unnecessary, perhaps prefer to speak of “christenings” rather than “baptisms,” and view communion as a quiet memorial of the life of Jesus. The Bible, interpreted with reason and modern scholarship, provides the myths and symbols and stories that enable them to speak of God and to instill moral values.

Believing that theirs is “the religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus,” the see they Galilean as a great teacher and the exemplar of a life of love to God and love to humankind. In the words of one layperson: “Jesus is the leader you don’t adore, but can’t ignore.”

To be a Christian, they might say, is “to follow Jesus.”

Source: Who Are the UU Christians?

Classical Unitarianism sounds a lot like the faith proclaimed in the Synoptic Gospels, right? Well, I suppose that depends upon one’s interpretation. Also, it should be noted that the above is but one expression among many in the Unitarian Universalist Association, as it exists today. This too is a welcome challenge for people of faith today.

Related posts:

You’ve heard of Occam’s Razor, right? It’s a philosophical concept that when used judiciously is supposed to facilitate rational decision making in situations wherein two or more choices or theories or whatever present themselves as competing alternatives. Basically, Occam’s Razor advances the idea that the less complicated explanation or action is the best one. There is no need, according to this principle, to seek a more complicated answer if a simpler one indeed exists. Sounds pretty solid, right? Well, it’s supposed to be simple, but some seem incessant on making a lot of things more complicated than they need be. Why? Who really knows?!?

Anyway, there is a very real possibility that folk can take a concept like Occam’s Razor way too far and over-rationalize things to the point of inaction. This sort of over-rationalization results in the inability to make any decision at all because such persons find rationality in actually doing nothing. This concept is illustrated by the story of Buridan’s Ass (so named, perhaps, by William of Occam’s pupil, Jean Buridan).

Buridan’s Ass is a philosophical parable concerning the danger of over-rationalizing choice.

The ass, finding itself placed midway between two haystacks, can see no reason to favor one stack over the other and so, does nothing and starves to death.

You see, the ass makes a terrible decision to do nothing because it supposes that there is no reason to do one thing over the other and therefore concludes that it is rational to do nothing at all. In the case of Buridan’s Ass, the ass would have made a rational choice to go towards one of the haystacks even if it could not find a good, rational reason to do so.

So, I guess, I am wondering how many of us act like this ass? We all have choices – many choices – to make in life, and we all hope to make rational decisions, but sometimes some big situations seem totally void of rational options. We may not be able to identify rational options within all of our situations, but does that mean we do nothing because nothing seems rational at the time? Sometimes doing nothing may in fact be a rational option, then again, maybe it’s just us being jackasses. And maybe we are in fact starving ourselves to death?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Most of the posts I have read recently seem to say that the Emerging Church (Emergent/Emergence) has gone too far, theologically speaking.

Am I one of the few who happens to think that it didn’t go far enough? I don’t think it went far enough. I don’t think it even came close. I think it came close to coming close, but retreated back for whatever reasons. So, many may say that emerging church theology went too far; I say it didn’t even come close to going far enough.

I suppose even failure is but a perception too.

Related posts:

Related posts:

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term.

The answer by one student was so ‘profound’ that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, “It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,” and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct … leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting “Oh my God.”

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

I’d like to take this time to send a hat tip to Harrison for sending me this story. Thanks, Harrison!

Related posts:

Anyway, here is the thought I was going to share on Facebook, but couldn’t because it was just too long:

I have been finally convinced that a lot of what is passed off as “religious expression” is in fact unhealthy and counter-productive to humanity’s greater good because a lot of people haven’t the slightest idea of why they are religious in the first place. Socrates, during his heresy trial, said “The unexamined life is not worth living” ( Apology 38a). The truth of that statement resonates to this day. In fact, I’d have little problem expanding upon it in the context of religious conversation and saying something like, “An unexamined faith is not worth two shits” (The Illustrated Pocket Handbook to Western Pennsylvanian Faith Slang 56A).”

Have you ever honestly asked yourself why you are religious? Why do you claim a faith expression? Why in the world do you do the things that you do? After you are done wrestling with those huge existential questions, I urge you to ask yourself one more big question. Ask yourself the following: “Am I the first person on this planet to do such things?”

There is also a little but not-so-subtle hint in there about one of the five writing projects I’m working on simultaneously.

Now back to your regularly scheduled hiatus already in progress …

Related posts:

Hiatus: Recess (break), a break or interruption in the continuity of a work, some sex series, action, etc.

The above definition of “Hiatus” was lifted from Wikipedia and pasted here for your convenience. I’m not quite sure how the part regarding “some sex series” applies to the word, and it’s probably better that I don’t know what in the hell that means. The important part of the definition is the bit about “taking a break or accepting interruption in the continuity of a work.” The work from which I will be taking a break is this blog. No, I am not closing this blog. I will be back writing and posting here in time. How much time? I’m not sure right now. I suppose however long it take some to finish the four or five writing projects I’m working on. I am excited about these projects and I am compelled to dedicate 100% of my time to them. So, everything else, including the regular updating of this blog, will have to take a back seat for as long as it takes. Happily, I don’t think that time will be too long. I should be back in a month or two, but that depends totally upon my muse’s willingness to cooperate.

So, don’t unsubscribe from the feed; in fact, if you aren’t subscribed already, you probably should do so now to stay updated on the status of this blog. I’m not going anywhere. The blog will remain. I’m just refocusing my attention and energy to a few very important writing projects.

Thanks, all. :)

Related posts: