Amidst the uproar over the Trump Administration citing the Bible to justify separating parents and children at the southern border, we Democrats had our own moment of religious intrusion on public policy discussion at convention yesterday.
In the course of floor debate on our platform’s Senior Issues plank, disagreement arose over the final point, in which we state that we “Support end-of-life decisions which includes a person’s right to die.” A delegate moved to strike that point, not to declare that the party as a whole opposes measures like the assisted suicide law that Hawaii passed in April or the similar measure that failed to make South Dakota’s ballot, but to acknowledge that Democrats are farther from consensus on this issue that on many others in our platform.
Delegates made fair and impassioned points on both sides. We even suspended the rules to extend debate, something we did on only one other plank, Native American issues (I resisted both rule suspensions, because rules are rules… and because I had to get a headlight replaced at 4 p.m.!). But as debate appeared to tilt against the amendment and toward keeping the point, the Senior Issues subcommittee co-chair asked to speak again. Visibly upset, she said, “You’re not in control. God is in control.”
The chair called the vote. The amendment failed. The language on end-of-life decisions remains.
But I kept thinking about the religious claim made by the speaker. I, a confirmed atheist, can’t even go to my Democratic state convention and avoid having someone assert a religious belief that I do not share as a reason I should do something.
I rose to speak only once during convention, in support of a motion from a young and well-received delegate from Ziebach County to call for lowering the age to run for Legislature from 21 to 18. I said the age change is a good idea because it demonstrates our commitment to increased participation by young voters in democracy and because it would allow us to legislators who can’t drink during Session. I can’t think of a good atheist argument for the motion, but even if I could have, I likely wouldn’t have made it, because I recognize that I was among a group with diverse religious views. Not everyone in the room shares my disbelief in the supernatural, so I’m not going to assert my different non-religious belief as a moral imperative for others on a matter of public policy.
The subcommittee chair’s sincerity and religious passion about the issue was clear. And she’s engaged in none of the hypocrisy of the Trump Administration, led by the clearly un-Christian Donald Trump. However, when your argument on a public policy matter boils down to, “I’m right because my God says so!” you’re falling away from making an argument that should pass muster in a pluralistic democracy. Even when I invoke Christian principles to make a point about public policy, I tend to preface my argument with something like, “If you are Christian, then consistent with your principles, you should….” I will not make a public argument about public policy by saying, “Your God doesn’t exist, so your reasoning is false and you should accept my atheist position instead.” I will not exclude Christians and other believers from public debate and decision-making. Christians should be just as resistant to excluding non-Christians from their governing visions.
Indeed. Her god does not exist.
IMO – humans often conflate the ultimate infinite control of the living evolving natural universe with the projection of their own sense of importance as being related to a “super” natural being in an effort to negate their own fears. It is actually an attempt at saying “I AM” (the literal Hebrew interpretation of God) is in control. I AM = God. More need to ponder this.
Certain pols act as if….
In the overall scheme of things, stuff happens. No one can necessarily explain why, but imagining being watched over helps people cope.
Stick a finger in a glass of water and pull it out. The hole left behind is an indication of how much humans matter in the universe.
Happy Father’s Day to all Father’s except Drumpf and his minions.
There is a certain sacredness, whether it be religious or secular, in the fact that each living organism plays a role in the evolutionary process. That process depends on life and death. Each is required for evolution to occur. At a certain point in more natural societies, people know when their value to the community decreases below the cost to the community, and they no longer can justify to themselves continuing on. Elders are especially valuable to relating history and culture to the young, but our society segregates the generations. If we really cared about older folks, we wouldn’t warehouse them, but make them a part of the community. But there comes a time when a person knows everyone is better off if they are a spirit or a nice memory. People used to walk off into nature, away from the community, or they volunteered for some especially dangerous task that would likely end with their death. Everyone knew why, and respected that.
Someone should brief God on the situation with our brothers and sisters children being warehoused to make a point. Maybe God is not aware of the concentration tent camps for children set up on the border with Mexico. Maybe God has forgotten the history of the same kinds of events that were held in Nazi Germany, in many of the “seniors” lifetime, of the same kinds of cruelty. When American uniformed members tell children that they are gonna separate them from their parents so they can “bathe” them, reminds me of the Nazi history of the holocaust victims with the “showers”.
Mr. Pay,
Where do people get the idea that everyone would be better off with their death? As your elderly example shows, maybe it’s society that needs to “kill” its views of peoples’ expandability rather than others needing to believe they are expendable…
They often say that WWII or Nazi analogies are not fair, but Jerry is exactly right about his “bathe” comment. Donald J. Trump is the greatest threat to western values since the formation of the Axis Powers in the 1930s.
Let’s assume for a moment that the un-named Senior Issues subcommittee co-chair was right when she said, “You’re not in control. God is in control.” That means that God saw to it that the South Dakota Democratic Party platform includes the provision to “Support end-of-life decisions which includes a person’s right to die.” This un-named person needs to accept God’s Will and stop fighting it – if she’s right.
Assuming again that the un-named Senior Issues subcommittee co-chair was right, God has just come down on the side of free will taking precedence over government control. If God is consistent, then that means God is also pro-choice. This un-named co-chair needs to re-examine whether her views are aligned with those of God, who is in control – if she’s right.
When you’re religious and you can’t back up your argument with anything else, you can always resort to “God said so.” It’s the last refuge of the inarticulate and uninformed.
Mr Cerwinske- I believe Mr Pay, who is more than capable of answering for himself, was speaking from an individual’s perspective on being burdensome to family and society,
Mike,
That’s a point I was trying to address. People who are suicidal often believe themselves to be burdensome to family and society. Does that mean they should kill themselves?
When we tell people to ask for help when feeling suicidal, is it to dissuade them or to help them calculate their worth?
But what if they are perfectly normal and know they are of no use to society? What if they are bed ridden and in pain? What if family members are forced to sell property to pay the bills?
It is not my place to tell them what to do. I firmly believe they should have options with the approval and sanctity of family members.
The government wants to force you to be born. Is the government going to decide when you check out? Should they?
I’m not sure what I think about the platform item. What I am sure about is that a discussion of political ideals in the United States of America should not involve anyone claiming endorsement by their god or any god.
From The World’s Most Dangerous Beauty Salon (Juanita Jeans)
Momma
June 17, 2018 By: Juanita Jean Herownself
Beloveds, I am sad to tell you that Momma passed away on Friday night in her own home. She had made a decision to cease all medication except for pain control and had been ready to go for a few days. She was 92 and 1/2 years old.
After being with family all day, she asked her caregiver for Blue Bell ice cream. She ate some and then told the caregiver that she was full and handed her the bowl. The caregiver took to bowl to the kitchen sink and returned to wash mom’s hands. Mom said, “I’ve had enough.” She closed her eyes and was gone within seconds. It was peaceful. I am so comforted that she got her Blue Bell.
Isn’t this the way it works in Fairy Tales?
mfi, I believe you were the 1st person that I saw posting links to Juanita Jean Herownself’s Most Dangerous Beauty Salon. As a result of clicking on your links it is now a site I visit nearly every day! Muchas gracias amigo!
Her description of her mother’s passing made me think of my own mother’s passing. She was in such terrible pain she asked many times for the option of euthanasia and even asked to move to Oregon so she could have her life ended quickly. Unfortunately Oregon law required at least 6 month’s residency before a person could chose euthanasia and my mother didn’t come close to surviving that long. Had she lived in Oreagon when the agressive cancer hit her body she could been spared a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
Thanks bcb. The hardest thing in my life was watching my Mother’s organs shut down after being taken off a respirator. She was declared brain dead, but the hospital needed family permission to pull the plug.
After the organs failed her pacemaker kept going for another hour. In my family’s case, all seven surviving siblings were well aware of Mother’s wishes and we dutifully and lovingly said our goodbyes.
bear and mfi, I noted with interest that in both your testimonials there was no mention of God.
There was a bill pending in the Minnesota legislature this year. I say pending because unlike the South Dakota legislature, the Minnesota legislature is not required to give each bill an up or down vote. So, the bill which allowed assisted suicide for people with a terminal illness who were mentally competent to make their own decisions was bottled up by the Republican majority and not allowed an up or down vote.
Ben Cerwinske wants to conflate assisted suicide bills with suicide by anyone anywhere, which is an entirely different thing. These bills are very limited in scope.
Roger, Mother was a lifelong Baptist woman who gave selflessly of her time and quilting abilities. She never felt the need to prove her piety to anyone, anywhere. Her faith was strong. When she was required to bury two sons and a husband, you could never tell by her demeanor ever, her heart was broken. What a rock she was.
Rorschach: Nope. I was addressing Mr. Pay’s comment which was broad in scope.
Ben Cerwinske: Nope. You started out by acknowledging that Mr. Pay was talking about elderly people wandering off to die. Then in your next comment you expanded the scope of the discussion by talking about suicide in general – which is an entirely different thing than anything in the Democratic platform or any bill introduced in any state.
Wrong Rorschach, that’s not what I acknowledged. Mr. Pay started out by talking about people in general, then used the elderly as an example. That’s what I acknowledged. I started off with talking about people in general (as Mr. Pay did), then acknowledged his elderly example.
I don’t think suicide should be promoted, but consider this: Did Jesus, in the end, commit suicide? Did the Christian martyrs commit suicide? Do soldiers who go to war and die commit suicide? If life is valued over every other thing, and the person has a responsibility to keep himself alive no matter what, then Jesus died by suicide, the Christian martyrs died in a cultish mass suicide and soldiers are brainwashed into suicidal action. We all make decisions about whether our life is more important than our beliefs or the supposed survival of our society and way of life. Jesus made that decision. He could have not done certain actions that led to what was the 0000s suicide by cop. When it came to the Vietnam War, I chose life, mostly because I didn’t believe in the reasons why we were fighting there and I didn’t believe in how that war was being waged. Others made a different decision, and some ended up dead. Were they suicides?
My family has had a number of suicides and attempted suicides. I don’t support suicide in any form. Anyone who is suicidal should seek help, and should understand that things can get better. I do understand when people come to the end of life they don’t want to linger past when nature would say they are no longer viable, or have a belief that they are willing to die for. People shouldn’t be forced into a medical regime that they don’t want. I know I don’t want to spend years or even days in a vegetative state, sucking money from taxpayers to keep my heart going while my brain is circling the drain.
When my Mom was came face-to-face with her deteriorating cognitive state, she asked if she should throw herself over the balcony railing and get it over with. My brother convinced her that would not be a good idea. What if she failed, and had to live with even worse conditions.
I have this idea that I would like the wolves to eat me. I’d be running around like Kevin Costner on his horse in Dances With Wolves, and it would end pretty quickly. Someone of our stature should only go out by an apex predator, right Grudz?
Mr. Costner and Mr. Pay; two fellows high enough in stature to end up as wolf poop.
All interesting and well thought out points Mr. Pay. Granted these passed bills tend to be narrow in scope, but the conversations surrounding them tend to be quite broad and aren’t had in a vacuum. They have a real effect on vulnerable populations and publicly reveal prejudices that these populations tend to experience more privately.
For example when someone says “I’d rather be dead than x”, that has an effect on someone who has x.
And that’s reincarnation, Grudz.
Come to think of it, perhaps the Senior Issues subcommittee co-chair was merely channeling Republican Ten Haken via Republican Lavallee.
Couldn’t help yourself could you Mr. Claussen, a senior moment perhaps?
Dear Colleagues:
Please allow me to wish a “Happy Father’s Day” to all Dad’s out there
For the past 30 years once a year of June 16th, I have come accustomed to the American way of honoring Special people in our lives. Prior to that my family and I used to put a lot of work into preparing for my Father’s memorial day, which we observe on January 1st. My father was a remarkable husband, uncle, friend and Father. He was a man a head of his time. He did not succumb to the pressures of exchanging his daughters with dowry. Most community members and his friends thought their friend is not in his right mind to pass on a big opportunity such as becoming rich. You may wonder as to where I am going with this. I am one of the 14 children, the second and the first girl. There were 9 of us girls and 5 boys. My family spent most of our lives in Kenya, after fleeing from Mozambique. I was 12 years old when I arrived in Nairobi Kenya, in August 1970. I did not leave the Continent until May 20th 1988.
The rest of the family is scattered around the Globe such places as Canada, USA, Southern Africa, China and UAE.
Let me go back to my Father, he was an orphaned at the age of 6, raised by Catholic Missionaries and became a teacher. During school breaks he would take jobs such a gas attendant to keep himself busy and his mind working. He was a man who was curious, risky and with a sense of exploration, which many of my of family members claim that I inherited those qualities from him.
In Kenya we lived among the Kikuyu tribe which resides a few km from the Nairobi, the capital City. The Kikuyu tribe asked dowry depending the girl’s educational level and family’s social standing and physical appearance determined the number of heads of cattle the girl’s father will get. There were many other advantages of having daughters, the dowry they brought to the family also helped pay their brothers pay for their dowries. Can you imagine, 9 girls and so many head’s of cattle and my father would have to worry to pay for only five boys. He would still have many cows left. He passed on all that in order to maintain dignity and integrity of his daughters. He did not believe girls as less intellectuals or capable as boys.
On this day I have a very strong appreciation of my father’s ethics to stand up against to what was considered normal and culturally. He did not live in those times, it is even more prevalent everyday that I see, hear and notice what my father’s vision of the world would fit this century. My father passed away while we were in exile, he had a rough life from the beginning and to the end. Cancer took three years of his live away from his wife and his children bedridden in the hospital bed to try to fight that horrible disease. I miss my father everyday. I wish he had had at least one year where he did not have to worry what his family will get their next meal. On this day, I would like to take time to honor all of you fathers everywhere. Know that you are loved and appreciated!
Sincerely,
Your Colleague and friend
Cory writes:
If you’re a Christian, then consistent with your principles, you should proclaim that humans aren’t the ultimate moral authority. God is.
But isn’t that really what you’re doing, Cory? The subcommittee co-chair reasons that we’re endowed with rights by our Creator, and our Creator hasn’t endowed us with a right to suicide. You argue that the co-chair’s God doesn’t exist, so her reasoning is false and we should accept your atheist position instead.
For the record, although I strongly disagree with it, I don’t believe your freedom to make that atheistic argument should be restricted.
Powerful Ms. Hart, thanks to you from all fathers.
Your father was clearly a remarkable man. Thank you Ms. Hart.
I don’t have a problem with the comment the woman at the convention made. The time and place and her position made it inappropriate.
In the US, and especially in states like SD, not being Christian regularly evokes swift, negative judgment, even persecution. All the more reason to be very careful about bringing it up in a political setting. It also shatters the notion of a “big tent” and sincere belief in the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats are going to portray the GOP as corrupt and lawless, and they are, then Dems better watch their step very carefully.
In my experience, few things make faith more attractive than gentleness. Insistence has the opposite affect.
Thank you Clara for sharing the story of your father with us on Father’s Day.
Jerry,
Yes, but like in name only….
Ben Cerwinkle, All I can tell you is when I was feeling suicidal – my value (positive or negative) to society never entered my mind. My own pain and suffering squeezed out consideration of anything else. Evidently, you’ve never actually been there yourself?
Everyone should get a voice, from their context and worldview. Humanism is a religion as well and voicing the best ideas of human reason as authoritative is no different than appealing to divine reasoning. Lighten up and may the best ideas prevail.
Mr. Schriever,
1. Yes I have.
2. That may have been your experience, but feelings of “Everyone would better off without me” are common amongst suicidal people.
I’m thinking about the story Mike shares—the Democratic plank about “end-of-life decisions” is about more than suicide. It includes the choice that 92-year-old woman made to cease all medication and come home to die. That sort of decision—the right to refuse treatment, to leave the hospital, to die on one’s own terms and not filled with tubes and drugs—belongs to individuals, not the state. Striking the phrase in question meant striking our respect for individual autonomy in a broader range of medical decisions than euthanasia.
Roger’s observation about the absence of “God” in Mike’s story is interesting. As Mike follows up, God was certainly part of his mother’s beliefs. Her belief in God may well have informed her end-of-life decision. But that’s her belief, and her decision, not the state’s, and not a political party’s.
I get confused easily, but aren’t wingnuts the ones that claim they want government out of people’s lives?
Ror’s analysis of God’s “control” serves as a good caution to anyone injecting his or her personal religious beliefs into a public policy debate. Religious debaters make such injections at their own peril, especially in the heat of the moment when emotion may lead one to make a theologically shaky or incomplete statement. Claiming God is in control to support one’s argument, and then seeing one’s argument lose in the public arena, leads to some kind of backfire: either (as Ror says) God is in control and he just weighed in against you, or (again, Ror) His idea of “control” differs significantly from yours, or God isn’t really in control and perhaps doesn’t even exist. See also the various pols who run for office claiming God’s mandate to rule.
As usual, Kurt Evans gives me a hard needle to thread. Kurt’s ability to dig into philosophical questions could make him a great asset to the public in the governor’s race, if the press will pay attention, ask him interesting questions, and give his full responses.
Kurt, may I escape the contradiction you propose (that I am invoking my own religious belief, or lack thereof, to make my public policy point) thus:
I don’t have to posit that there is no God to defeat the public policy argument in question. I can concede that there may be a God, yet maintain that in a pluralistic democracy where not everyone agrees that there is one Christian God who takes the controlling role the speaker claims, the state cannot stake a claim to the existence of that particular God by enacting a policy based on that God’s existence.
Consider the two possible outcomes:
(1) The state takes the speaker’s position, enacting a policy saying, “God says you can’t do that, so you can’t do that.” The state gives one religious view pre-eminence over others, violating the First Amendment and sending me to jail if I act in disagreement with the speaker’s religious views.
(2) The state takes the Democratic platform position, staying out of end-of-life decisions. The speaker remains free to practice and promote her religious views. She might successfully persuade everyone to adopt her religious views, achieving the happy life-affirming goal she seeks, just without the use of the force of law.
The latter seems preferable to the former. The latter also seems preferable to the state’s imposition of some perverse combination of my atheism and Donald Pay’s moral utilitarianism (neither of us say this, but I’m reaching for an extreme) which would declare that there is no God or supernatural to give life any meaning beyond the material, and the atheist state will thus evaluate the life of every citizen from age 20 every five years to determine if his or her material contributions to the general welfare outweigh whatever costs he or she imposes on society. Three negative evaluations lead to termination. Again, that’s not for the state to decide.
Debbo, right on! I agree completely with your statement about the hazards of bringing up a religious statement in a political forum. I have no problem with a person making that claim in conversation and inviting hours of diverting theological discourse (“What is control? How does God feel about free will?”). I can even embrace the same statement made in a policy argument among members of the same church (ah! recall the ELCA bishop term limits debate!). The problem arises in injecting a religious claim into public policy-making in a pluralistic democratic society.
Gentleness versus insistence—ah, so that explains my inability to win elections. :-D
Rev. Hickey, humanism (or whatever term we may apply to what I believe) is not a religion. It is the absence of religion.
Analogy: there are many ways to have sex. Celibacy is not another way to have sex.
There are quite a few celibates getting preggers. Even some famous for pushing celibacy. So now, do we claim hypocrisy is sex?
“the state cannot stake a claim to the existence of that particular God by enacting a policy based on that God’s existence.”
I think that’s basic to the US constitution.
(Your “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.” button is not working for me. Well, it did one time. I’ve tapped it every time, but still have to fill in my name and email.)
I was getting that as well, Debbo. Now, every once in awhile when I click on a comment I get a podcasts page.
[Tech note: uh oh! I’ll take a look! Sorry about that—thanks for alerting me!]
For hundreds of generations, the religious people of this planet have been the majority and the non-religious people & atheists have been the minority.
We minorities have been trampled on repeatedly by you majorities. We have been killed, enslaved, assimilated, shamed, tortured, imprisoned, and all combinations of those things. Nearly every aspect of our lives has been molded by silly beliefs in angels and demons and talking snakes and virgins in the sky and dead people being born again as zombies.
Atheists and non-religious folks have done everything we can to fight back against this mindlessness, but this is a Silly Religious People problem, not a whole-population problem. We can’t fix the problems all you religious people have created. You have to fix it. This is an obligation of all religious people: because you believe in god, you are responsible to police the thoughts and actions of all other who believe in god, regardless of any other thoughts or actions you share or don’t share.
Right? Every problem is just the problem of the majority who benefits from it, right? Anybody?
(Really? Non-believers have always been the minority, across time and civilizations? Interesting! Why is that?)
Not forever, but for thousands of years, yes. You asked why. I would guess the fear of death and of our unimportance were the primary creators of organized religion and are the primary reasons organized religion still exists.
Religion is a crutch for the weak minded.
Correct, as usual, grudznick.
Southern Baptists are quitting the culture wars and kicking the wingnut party to the curb in time to join the 21st century.
Yup. The young Baptists have had enough of the bastardization of their denomination. They’ve elected a 4? yr old to lead. They’re talking about much broader roles for women, actively seeking and welcoming POC, etc.
Bad news for the fake Christian GOP. There will still be “evangelicals” like Falwell, Dobson, Jefress, etc., who stump for greed, racism, misogyny and such, but this sea change by the SBC puts an enormous dent in their numbers.
Hooray for the SBC!