would eggs fertilized in the united states be human beings that are citizens, or would they be non-citizens? would they get social security numbers? what about non-birth certificates, or pre-birth certificates--would they get those? if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant, we might be able to clearly hold her responsible for harming the "human being in her" and upping its risk of developmental problems, but what if she contributed to the same risks by conceiving at the age of 40 or older, or being constantly under stress while pregnant?

there are, of course, issues affecting the carrier of a fertilized egg that range from the ridiculous to the serious when it comes to declaring a fertilized egg capable of personhood. the paperwork alone would be mind-boggling, and i'm not sure that the proponents of the bill have any idea as to what they're getting into. a "person" has an immigration status, a social security number, a tax id number, and a name, at the bare minimum.

hopefully, it won't pass. but if it does, i predict it will be short-lived due to the legal, bureaucratic, and administrative chaos that will result.

does the model look to be barely sixteen?

so much to say. so little time.

carse's statement that believing in "to be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe", made after referencing Dawkins, tells me that he probably has not actually read the works of richard dawkins, or if he has, that he hasn't understood it. dawkins speaks at length about his fascination with the natural and physical world, and his intent motivation to learn about it. in fact, Einstein, who quite evidently wondered about the universe and seemed to even be stunned about the mysteries of things, was an atheist, and somehow he managed.

it is also completely, totally, and in all ways baffling to me why an atheist has to be clear about which faith he or she is turning her back to. from what i can tell, carse never says why he feels this way or provides a reason why this is the case. atheists, as carse admits, can be involved with, and passionate about, belief systems that are traditionally described as religions, such as judaism, jainism, confucianism, daoism, and buddhism, and therefor, i assume he means that atheists must declare exactly which god he or she is choosing not to follow. he provides no reason for this, and none are immediately clear.

and lastly, is the age-old claim that people such as dawkins or harris are not "experts" in religion and ergo are not qualified to comment on the ludicrousness of some of their teachings. reading the bible, being raised in a christian household, and living in what is, in practice, a christian country somehow "qualifies" a person to speak at length about the benefits and beauty of christianity, but not, for some reason, its problems and its more dangerous aspects, is also (of course) not discussed.

" But James Carse doesn't see them as religious conflicts at all. To him, they are battles over rival belief systems, which may or may not have religious overtones. "

again, i must disagree with james carse. so much to disagree with him on. and, lest i be lumped in with those "unqualified" to comment on religion, i will disclose that i am in the islamic studies doctoral program at a UC school.

the conflicts listed, to a one, are political conflicts that are cast in terms of religious rhetoric. to say that israel/palestine is a conflict over religion, or even belief systems, is to ignore the fact that both parties are essentially disputing rights to valuable real estate. protestants and catholics in ireland, the shia and sunni in iraq, and the events of 9/11, though often couched in religious rhetoric, are political events wherein power, money, land, water, oil, or other economic pursuits are contested by two different groups. religion, being that it is divinely sourced, somehow above criticism, and sent by god, is the most powerful of rhetorical devices and justifications for action, and it is thus religious imagery that is often used to motivate believers to rally to a given cause.

it is profoundly surprising that dr carse, a tenured professor at an esteemed university, would fail to recognize the political, resource-driven, and economic dimension to these conflicts.

if i remember correctly, the judge informed the applicant that she was not sufficiently assimilated because she was in total and complete submission to her male relatives. additionally, Amara said she hoped the ruling would "dissuade certain fanatics from imposing the burqa on their wives."

let's say for a moment that it's true that women in the niqab are not choosing to wear it, and that they are, indeed, being forced to by their husbands and fathers. if this is the case, why punish the women? why isn't the applicant's HUSBAND who is being denied citizenship for insufficient assimilation since he is apparently the one forcing his wife to wear the damn thing? why aren't men who "require" their wives to wear niqab or burqa the ones being punished?

even if we decide to accept the French point of view that women are being forced to dress in this manner (and this is, of course, not necessarily the case) it STILL makes no sense to punish women for being forced into what Amara herself called "a prison... a straitjacket...[and] the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes."

good work france! way to punish the victims of inequality!