Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Aimee Copeland and Flesh-Eating Disease
Aimee Copeland is a beautiful college co-ed who has developed a rare condition called necrotizing fasciitis, a flesh-eating disease in which the bacteria emit toxins that destroy muscle, fat, and skin tissue. She got it as a result of falling off a zip-line into a small river in Georgia and suffering a gash in her leg. The disease has ravaged her body. She has been battling kidney failure and other organ damage. So far, the doctors have had to amputate one leg and both hands. If the disease continues to spread, she could die. She has shown great bravery while faced with this horrible affliction.
Today her father reported that Aimee is able to breathe without the aid of a ventilator. He said, “I believe God is going to take care of the future." He went on to say, "I just thank God my daughter is alive." When he went to the bank he wound-up hugging everybody at the bank. He said, "Aimee has always been a hugging person, and in a really odd way, I believe that God is sharing Aimee's spirit through me. That's one of the things that has really kept me going."
There is still the possibility the Aimee will die of this unspeakably terrible disease. I wonder whether her father will be able to maintain his optimistic attitude if she does. She is now terribly disabled, missing one leg and two hands, but things could get worse. I hope she gets better.
I suppose that it is natural to thank God for any improvements in Aimee’s condition and to pray to God for to let her live. Belief in God provides a great amount of comfort for people like Mr. Copeland facing catastrophic tragedy. Yet, to me, it is sad that someone like Mr. Copeland goes on worshipping this mythical being called God even though God has allowed this heartbreaking misfortune to destroy the body, and perhaps the life of his daughter Aimee. Does God get credit for every good thing that happens to Aimee, but no blame for the bad things?
If there was a God, an omnipotent creator of the universe, he could not be good. The God worshipped by western religions is supposed to be infinitely good and loving. But any God that would permit a young, innocent girl to suffer with the horrors of necrotizing fasciitis disease, or one of the many other horrible afflictions, would have to be a monster of infinite sadism.
God cannot have it both ways. If he created all things, and if we are to thank him for every improvement in Aimee’s condition, we must condemn him for the horror she has already undergone. If we are to thank God for saving us from fires and tornadoes, we must condemn him for allowing human lives to be destroyed in such catastrophes. If we are to thank him for our daily bread, we must condemn him for world hunger and starvation. If God gets the credit, he also deserves the blame.
What if God does not do bad things? What if they are done by the Devil? It makes no difference. If God is the creator of Heaven, Hell, and all things, he is the creator of Satan. If he is omnipotent and omniscient, but lets the Devil have free reign (See the Book of Job), he is as guilty as Satan. If God can answer Mr. Copeland’s prayer and let Aimee live, he can also prevent Aimee’s disease from happening. If there was a God, and he stood by and let this sweet innocent young woman suffer this torture, he would be unworthy of our worship. He would be a cruel monster.
God does not exist. He is a psychological crutch we use to help us in times of great sorrow. We never think rationally when we rely on God in times of trouble. If he really existed, and if he actually became involved in human life, we would never have the kind of tragedy being suffered by Aimee.
Same-Sex Marriage
Now that President Obama has followed the lead of Vice President Biden and stated that he supports the right to same-sex marriage, the subject has become a campaign issue. Since I originally published this article, several states, including New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. Others, such as North Carolina, have banned it through constitutional amendments. One can easily discern the red-state bias in such opposition to same-sex marriage. The states that have allowed same-sex marriage are the more northern, liberal, educated, sophisticated, tolerant states. The states that have banned it are the same states that oppressed African Americans for decades even after their emancipation from slavery. The Republican Party is appealing to the lowest and most ignorant types of Americans in its use of this issue.
What is at the base of the debate over same-sex marriage? In the June 19, 2005, issue of The New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto described a period of time he spent with a group of anti-gay-marriage activists in Maryland. He came away with the conviction that the activists were motivated by their belief that homosexuality is evil rather than by any adverse effects such marriages could have upon society. The activists were convinced that homosexuality is a disease and that it is spreading.
Despite the opposition to same-sex marriage, there seems to be a growing trend around the world to recognize the right of gay people to enter into marriage. Canada now has a law allowing same-sex marriages. Such unions are also permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Denmark Norway, Sweden, and Iceland give marital rights to gay couples under laws providing for “registered partnerships.” In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding same-sex marriage were contrary to the state’s constitution. Since then, gay couples have been getting married in Massachusetts. New York and other states have moved to allow such marriages, and some states are passing laws allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages do not in any way harm or affect heterosexual marriage. Many homosexuals form long-term loving unions just like married straight couples. The problem is that in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay couple who have lived together for an extended period of time has acquired very few of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. Those rights include inheritance, real property, joint income tax returns, social security benefits, medical benefits, homestead protection, support, alimony, and many others. Gay partners seek not only the property benefits of marriage but also the symbolic recognition of their relationship.
Although anti-gay-marriage activists are motivated by a bigotry arising out of religious convictions, they assert that marriage is the bedrock of a sound society and claim that same-sex marriage will make heterosexual marriage collapse. In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support such an argument. Anti-gay-marriage activists point to a study done by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz in which he claimed that the laws permitting “registered partnerships” had brought about the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia. In fact, Kurtz was mistaken. In Denmark, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century, but it turned around after the “registered partnership” law was passed in 1989. Then the marriage rate continued to climb. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. The marriage rates for Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the “registered partnership” laws were passed.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that such marriages cause harm to children. In the case of "Baehr v. Miike," the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that there was no such harm and invalidated a law forbidding gay marriage. (The Baehr decision later became moot when the Hawaii legislature passed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but the findings of the case are worth consideration.) Curiously, the experts for both sides testified that children raised in gay homes suffered no problems different from children of heterosexual parents. Moreover, the children raised by gay couples did not become gay as a result of their parents’ sexual identity. The psychological wellbeing of the children was far more dependent on the love, stability, protection, and support of their families than on the sex of the parents. Many studies have supported the findings of the Hawaii Court.
So we come to the real argument of the anti-gay-marriage activists. They say that homosexuality is a “perversion” and that it is forbidden by the Bible. They argue that homosexuality is a “choice” and that it is sinful. They maintain that homosexuality is a disease that can be passed on to others and that it is infecting our society. They oppose gay marriage because they oppose gays. It would be insulting to gay people to get into a long discussion about the causes of sexual preference. Regardless of the causes, gays are American citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Homosexuality is not evil and is not a disease. If we were to follow Biblical injunctions, it would appear to be okay for the state to execute gays on account of their homosexuality. We live in a more civilized world than that. Homosexuality does not harm heterosexuals. Many of our leading Americans are gay. Gays do not choose their sexual preference any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Intelligent people know, and many studies have confirmed, that sexual preference is something you are born with, not a choice.
What is at the base of the debate over same-sex marriage? In the June 19, 2005, issue of The New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto described a period of time he spent with a group of anti-gay-marriage activists in Maryland. He came away with the conviction that the activists were motivated by their belief that homosexuality is evil rather than by any adverse effects such marriages could have upon society. The activists were convinced that homosexuality is a disease and that it is spreading.
Despite the opposition to same-sex marriage, there seems to be a growing trend around the world to recognize the right of gay people to enter into marriage. Canada now has a law allowing same-sex marriages. Such unions are also permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Denmark Norway, Sweden, and Iceland give marital rights to gay couples under laws providing for “registered partnerships.” In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding same-sex marriage were contrary to the state’s constitution. Since then, gay couples have been getting married in Massachusetts. New York and other states have moved to allow such marriages, and some states are passing laws allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriages do not in any way harm or affect heterosexual marriage. Many homosexuals form long-term loving unions just like married straight couples. The problem is that in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, a gay couple who have lived together for an extended period of time has acquired very few of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples. Those rights include inheritance, real property, joint income tax returns, social security benefits, medical benefits, homestead protection, support, alimony, and many others. Gay partners seek not only the property benefits of marriage but also the symbolic recognition of their relationship.
Although anti-gay-marriage activists are motivated by a bigotry arising out of religious convictions, they assert that marriage is the bedrock of a sound society and claim that same-sex marriage will make heterosexual marriage collapse. In the case of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health," the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support such an argument. Anti-gay-marriage activists point to a study done by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz in which he claimed that the laws permitting “registered partnerships” had brought about the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia. In fact, Kurtz was mistaken. In Denmark, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century, but it turned around after the “registered partnership” law was passed in 1989. Then the marriage rate continued to climb. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. The marriage rates for Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the “registered partnership” laws were passed.
Opponents of gay marriage claim that such marriages cause harm to children. In the case of "Baehr v. Miike," the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that there was no such harm and invalidated a law forbidding gay marriage. (The Baehr decision later became moot when the Hawaii legislature passed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but the findings of the case are worth consideration.) Curiously, the experts for both sides testified that children raised in gay homes suffered no problems different from children of heterosexual parents. Moreover, the children raised by gay couples did not become gay as a result of their parents’ sexual identity. The psychological wellbeing of the children was far more dependent on the love, stability, protection, and support of their families than on the sex of the parents. Many studies have supported the findings of the Hawaii Court.
So we come to the real argument of the anti-gay-marriage activists. They say that homosexuality is a “perversion” and that it is forbidden by the Bible. They argue that homosexuality is a “choice” and that it is sinful. They maintain that homosexuality is a disease that can be passed on to others and that it is infecting our society. They oppose gay marriage because they oppose gays. It would be insulting to gay people to get into a long discussion about the causes of sexual preference. Regardless of the causes, gays are American citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Homosexuality is not evil and is not a disease. If we were to follow Biblical injunctions, it would appear to be okay for the state to execute gays on account of their homosexuality. We live in a more civilized world than that. Homosexuality does not harm heterosexuals. Many of our leading Americans are gay. Gays do not choose their sexual preference any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Intelligent people know, and many studies have confirmed, that sexual preference is something you are born with, not a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
