Counterfeit detection?

Part of the training to work in a bank involves being able to tell the difference between counterfeit money and genuine currency.  This is accomplished, not by studying various types of fakes, but rather, by spending hours upon hours handling the real stuff.  This was the basis of a favorite analogy in the Fundamentalist Christian environment I grew up in.  The "moral of the story" was, of course, that one did not need to be familiar with other beliefs to be able to share the "Truth".  (This applied not only to other religions, but other variations {perversions} of our own Christianity).  We were encouraged to remain within the safety of our little bubble, only venturing out in groups, and properly "armed", lest our "Truth" be challenged.

Even as a youngster I was troubled by the implications: if our "Truth" is infallible, can it not withstand a challenge?  Am I to assume that everyone that believes differently than I do has malicious intent to deceive me in some way?  

Nevertheless, I have apparently always been very pleased with an opportunity to present a clever word picture, and I offered this one many times.  But cleverness doesn't always guarantee validity.  

Perhaps this well-intended analogy can still be redeemed?  I think so.  I believe that the analogy is simply incomplete.

It is certainly valid for a banker to spend countless hours studying the very purpose for their existence.  It is certainly important for them to be able to quickly identify someone intending to deceive them with a counterfeit.  However, I feel that it is also important to recognize that there are other civilizations out there with other currencies that, while different from your own, are not entirely without value.  While they may not have any value to you, and may not be valid to make a purchase in your system, they are not necessarily presented to you with intent to deceive.  The person carrying that currency truly believes in its value, and there are legitimate civilizations based entirely on that real or perceived value.

So, the moral of my updated version of the analogy is this: you are under no obligation to accept the currency of another culture, but I think it is important to differentiate between those that intend to deceive you and those who are offering you something they legitimately believe is valuable.  

To be clear: the original analogy is about how you view the currency you wish to distribute, and how you deal with counterfeit currencies that wish to devalue your own.  My version is really about how you will approach the people with different currencies, and whether or not you will devalue them.

Personal Politics?

So, this is a follow up to a previous post, in which I discussed my feelings on abortion.  Here's a quick summary:

I am content with the label "Anti-abortion".

My faith totally and completely informs my position on this.  I believe that life begins at conception, and should be protected from that time forward.

I think the term “Reproductive Rights” is bullshit.  (That’s the strongest language I have used in a public online forum to date, and I apologize if some of you find it offensive, but it is what it is...)

I don't believe there is ever an appropriate time for an abortion.  Certainly not as birth control.  And I think that two wrongs just make a really wrong situation, so I don't believe it is truly beneficial in cases of rape or incest.  Finally, when we're talking about mother's and/or baby's lives at risk, I'm just not confident enough in medicine and science to allow doctors to decide that certain death is necessary to prevent potential death.  That's personal- I'm here because my mom didn't buy it either.

So, where does that leave me?  Ready to outlaw abortion altogether?  Not so fast...

After that last post, a friend of mine asked if I was prepared to legislate my religious beliefs on the entire nation.  Yikes!  That goes against my position on religion and state.  Hmmmm, how do I reconcile these?

As I said, my position on the starting point of life is based on religious beliefs that I'm not willing to impose on others.  So, let's talk about science instead.  Let's talk about "viability".

Now, in the animal world, “abortion” is when a mother rejects her baby for one reason or another, and abandons it, leaving it to fend for itself.  “Viable” is when that newborn animal is somehow able to care for and defend itself, otherwise it is eliminated by “Natural Selection”- often contributing to some other animal’s “Survival of the Fittest”.
With that perspective in mind, I think it is safe to say that a human offspring could not be considered “viable” for a number of years after its birth. However, I’m going to assume that we’re not ready to legalize abandonment as a method of birth control.

OK, I'll admit that I'm in no way qualified to determine when a fetus might be "viable", which may be why I resort to my faith to inform my position. But I think I might have a scientifically acceptable compromise we can agree on: take the earliest recorded premature birth in which the child survived and make it illegal to have an abortion from that point on. I'm optimistic that many of us could agree to that.

Optimistic?  What does that have to do with anything?  A lot really.  See, I'm not optimistic that we could ever completely outlaw abortion in this country.  Furthermore, I'm not optimistic that abortion would stop even if we were able to outlaw it.  I think it would just become even more unsafe than it is.  So I would take that compromise as a win.  

But let's dig even deeper.  If laws couldn't/wouldn't stop this, then what is going on here?  Clearly, these are women and girls who feel that they don't have any other option.  They feel that they have no way to cope with it all: the pregnancy, and the responsibility of rearing a child.  Fear is a powerful thing, and I think the only thing powerful enough to combat it is love.  Law can't do it- it just makes it worse.  Piety only turns fear to hate.  If we want these girls to bring these babies into the world, we can't just tell them it's the law, or that they need to carry out their responsibilities- we have to love them and help them see the possibilities.  

Possibilities.  I don't know what all the possibilities are, but I think making adoption easier might be a good start.  And we need to make education more available.  And we need to turn the churches back into places of safety and love, instead of condemnation.

So, let me leave you with some other thoughts to stir you up even further:
If the church is so concerned about the welfare of babies, why are there so many babies on Welfare?
Given the option, which would you choose: an aborted baby, or a child adopted by a same-sex couple?
Why are most Pro-Lifers also in favor of capital punishment?

And finally, check out this debate for 2 more views on this topic.