True Story

This past week I read a great rant by Paul Rudnick entitled "True Story" in The New Yorker. In summary, the story followed a fictional Mormon family from Utah on a road trip to Massachusetts, a state where gay marriage is now legal. The hypocritical extremes of both sides of the religion vs. gay feud are explored through gross over exaggeration and fantastic stereotype. Cars drive by with license plates that read "Massachusetts--The Anal Sex State," and it's the law that all gay couples recieve a 50 percent discount on everything. As any devout couple would do, the Mormon husband and wife pretend to be gay to take advantage of this discount. Once they reach their relatives' house, they notice a rainbow-painted mailbox that prevents their gay mailman from trashing their mail, and they are instructed on how to interact with the neighbors so that the heterosexual couple's house won't be vandalized. Beautiful.

Knowing that the author is not Mormon made this story even better for me. It is refreshing for someone to be able to admit that the extremes at both sides of this issue are rediculous and sometimes at fault. At the same time, some of the stereotyping did go too far. Assuming that all Mormons are so naive and against gay rights is like assuming that all Muslims are terrorists--it just isn't true! And many gay individuals respect others' religious beliefs. I would also suggest a little more research on the author's part. For example, Mormons don't use collection plates; they use envelopes and can even write checks! It always amazes me how much writers think they know, especially when they have a prescient for hating the thing they're writing about with no intention of changing their opinion.

Abortion: Religion vs. Politics

For my first entry on this new blog, I figured I would start with an issue that is both making headlines in the news and is a timeless issue that always seems to get zealots (on both sides) riling. Many of you have at least breezed by headlines that Dr. Tiller, infamous 3rd trimester abortion provider, was murdered this past week by a pro-lifer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090602/us_time/08599190212000). I'm sure I don't have to spell out the irony there, but is there ever justification for violent religious fundamentalism? I haven't been able to come up with an instance where it is, but I will leave this one open for everyone to debate.

Personally, I am religiously pro-life and politically pro-choice. I haven't encountered many who are able to identify with this stance (usually it's one or the other), but let me explain. My pro-life stance is a choice that I have made for my own life, and I don't hold anyone else to this standard. Religiously (and scientifically), I believe that a fetus is a human being, and that I would be wrong to end a child's life. Yes, the all-too necessary disclaimer: I would accept an abortion in cases of rape or if my own life was put in jeopardy, but statistics show that only 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are a result of rape and only 6 percent for the mother's health.

My pro-choice stance stems to everyone else and is twofold. First, I (and the government) have no right to impose my morals on anyone else. Every woman has agency. Second, abortions are already dangerous, both physically and psychologically. Banning them will not stop them; they will only become more dangerous, being performed without proper medical care and placing the woman's life in more danger. From a religious perspective, if a woman were to die during an unsafe abortion, she would never have the opportunity to improve her life and make amends for her actions.

So, what do you think? Can religious and political views on abortion coincide? Where do you stand?