Opponents of reproductive rights for women are fond of claiming that since one abortion is murder, legalized abortion amounts to genocide. This line of argument enables some Christian extremists to justify the murder of physicians who provide abortion services. After all, these doctors are really engaged in genocide, killing them may seem warranted. Of course, this entire line of argument rests on the controversial claim that abortion is murder.

It seems like it might be interesting to apply some of the "logic" from the anti-choice movement and apply it to a different scenario. Suppose something was happening that was uncontroversially criminal (e.g., child rape). Victims exist, and the act is undeniably illegal. Couldn't those who perpetrate the crimes, conceal the crimes, and provide the perpetrators with access to victims be rightly views as committing atrocities?

One of the more frustrating aspects of the human condition is that we can never truly know what someone else thinks of us. We can certainly choose to trust others, but there is always some aspect of doubt. I know what he or she tells me, but what does he or she really think about me? It is something we must infer...at least most of the time. Sometimes the veil is pulled back and we get a glimpse of someone's true feelings. What we discover is not always pleasant.

Conservative politicians generally agree that the government should not be in the business of providing any sort of assistance to unemployed or impoverished Americans. Let the churches do that, they say. By shifting this burden from the government to the religious sector, they aim to relieve the wealthiest 2% of most of their tax burden and shrink the size of government (at least in certain areas). But look at what happens if we play this scenario out.

The public has to count on churches to fulfill this role, the very churches the conservative politicians would like to free from any sort of regulation about who they hire and who they may choose to help. Aid comes with strings attached once churches are so freed. The government cannot discriminate, but churches would have no such constraints. Is it any wonder that conservatives and clergy are so often in bed together?

Being a fiscal conservative who prefers a smaller government is one thing. Supporting policies that force the needy to grovel before the churches to receive vital aid is something else entirely.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Media of all forms is abuzz with news that Osama bin Laden was killed. It was a big story, so lots of coverage is understandable. As you can see in the screenshot to the right, CNN went with the tagline, "Terrorist leader's body buried at sea; Americans rejoice." Americans rejoice? Absolutely. If you spend any time on Facebook or Twitter today, you saw that this description was perfectly accurate.

Some of my posts are inspired by hours - even days - of introspection and reflection. Others are sparked by mere seconds of exposure to something interesting. This is one of the latter, prompted by a brief snippet of a discussion on BBC radio I heard this morning.

A Muslim woman was commenting about how someone "practiced the right kind of Islam." Because it was so brief, I don't have any context for this statement. Nevertheless, it stuck with me. Is there a "right kind of Islam?"