When health care reform was first proposed in the United States, one of the talking points raised by conservative idiots trying to scare the general public was the dreaded “death panels“, a supposed government entity that would be “whacking” old people willy-nilly. Rational minded policy makers failed to dissuade the public (who were spoon-fed this nonsense by right wing talking heads) that this threat was simply a fabrication. The controversy ended up being about “end of life” services; essentially giving people the ability to chose when they want to stop receiving treatment for terminal ailments, rather than letting the choice be made by other people. It’s a responsible way to look at the realities of death; not everyone wants to keep fighting when they’ve been in pain their whole lives.

In the end, the real controversy about “end of life” services is actually over the fact the religious right abhors euthanasia, which they regard simply as “a sin”. Take the story of this New Zealand woman who can’t seem to be able to die in peace: After suffering a cerebral hemorrhage 20 years ago and living in pain ever since, she’s recently decided to stop eating and simply let herself die. Her own fellow citizens, however, are trying to prevent this, motivated by the primitive thought a supernatural being would not approve of her actions:

Margaret’s life is important, she is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The taking of one’s life is contrary to the moral law. Our life is a gift from God. We are but stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. The decision to kill oneself, is not a rational decision. She has been assessed by psychiatrists as being lucid, but was she also assessed as being severely depressed and if so, why is she not being treated for this condition?

The problem for these religious folks trying to force Margaret Page to eat is this is actually a form of assault in their country, so although it’s apparently illegal for someone to kill themselves (a law I’ve come to realize is entirely motivated by religious sentiments), it’s also illegal to shove food down their gullets to keep them alive. Hello paradox!

The doctors may still choose to keep her alive if she become unconscious from malnutrition, since it’s unlikely they would be charged with assault (I’m hoping of course this won’t happen). The religious organization “Right to Life” is asking the authorities to save her, but when is someone actually going to bother to listen to the person who’s actually living that life? She no longer wants to suffer and wishes to die, but religious opposition is making even this simple request impossible. This is the degree of control religion wants to have over every single human being. They may mask it under the guise of “respecting life”, but their need to dominate all aspects of human life makes it impossible for them to respect anyone’s right to actually make their own choices.

**NOTE** She recently succeeded in choosing to end her own life. You can read all about it here.

I need to get my hands on this book: Apparently a publishing company in India released a book with a picture of Jesus holding a beer and a cigarette in the state of Meghalaya in India. Government officials have been busy confiscating all the textbooks, and making sure everyone know just how offensive this is.

Personally I want to ask why they included this awesome image. Was this an accident, or a hilarious jab intended for Christians? Either way, I suddenly wish I had a few more fans in India so I could get my hands on it. They’ll probably destroy them all and punish the publisher for their blasphemy.

Now I know for a fact few Christians have much of a sense of humor when it comes to their Messiah (probably also because their own religion suggests blasphemy is a sin), but why would God punish you for having a good laugh? Lighten up, God!

There’s a bit of an ideological war going on in the Christian faith, and if you weren’t paying close attention, you wouldn’t even know it’s waging. Take the “Manhattan Declaration” for instance (not the one on climate change), a frightening manifesto by religious conservatives that claims equality and anti-discrimination laws are destroying people’s freedom of religion. Their biggest issues, unsurprisingly, are gay marriage (which they equate to bestiality, polygamy and incest), abortion rights, and assisted suicide:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s [NOTE: are they referring to taxes here, cuz they usually hate that shit]. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s

The whole document is an attempt by Conservatives to paint themselves as martyrs fighting for people’s rights. In reality, they’re resisting the way society is changing; namely, how it’s becoming more tolerant and egalitarian. It’s taken a long time, but we’re finally beginning to understand human sexuality is not a covenant with a supreme being, but rather the product of biological impulses. You can no more chose your sexuality than you can your eye color, although there are plenty of ways people try to cheat this (think colored contacts and gay-to-straight “therapy”).

You want to know why it’s a bad idea to let religious institutions dictate what marriage is all about?

Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life…Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit.

You hear that? Marriage isn’t about romance, love or wanting to share your life with someone else. It’s all about procreation, and if you aren’t happy about that, too fucking bad! Your body was made by God to create offspring, and if you think otherwise, you’re committing a sin against him. So, rather than divorce the man who fathered your children and who lovelessly sticks his seed-squirter into your baby-receptacle, you should stick it out for the good of mankind; happiness and love be damned!

Dr. Jeffrey Long is a doctor who helps terminal cancer patients deal with their illness. He’s been fascinated with Near Death Experiences for a long time, and he’s recently written a book about them called Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences. He has interviewed thousands of people, and because of the remarkable similarity of their experiences, he’s concluded it must be proof there is an afterlife. I think it just proves he’s a fucking idiot.

Dr. Long has obviously decided to abandon his objectivity, and I find his use of the word “Science” in his title extremely misleading. When you do science, you have to explain how even your own theories might be disproved; in his case, all that is necessary is evidence that the reason we experience similar effects during death is because of the way the brain reacts when it dies.

The effects of NDEs have been recorded for a long time, and most serious scientists compare them with what we experience during lucid dreaming (this is where people are aware they are dreaming, but still have very realistic experiences). Dr. Long is either unaware of these studies, or has already concluded that the only viable explanation must be there is a supernatural world that people escape to during death. It’s a pretty weak conclusion, and it’s obviously not very scientific. Perhaps he’s never heard of Occam’s Razor; is it more logical to assume people’s brains are freaking out and releasing a potent cocktail of chemicals to calm them down, or that a spiritual world beyond our comprehension exists so our minds can live forever in some fantasy land paradise? I feel fucking stupid just proposing the latter, and so should he.

He claims he’s a better physician now that he’s written this book. I would disagree, since he now foolishly believes he has enough proof to tell his patients they don’t need to feel frightened about death since they will live forever in a magical playland created by a loving sky daddy. Maybe not everyone feels it’s very healthy to endorse obvious wishful thinking. Sounds to me like he’s actually gotten worse.