Nullifying Love in the Name of Tradition and Religion

Is anyone surprised?

I know I'm not. Not content to rule their own flock, or allow some basic civil liberties (alright, let's be honest - not content to allow basic rights towards a group of human beings), the backers of Prop 8 are finally being called on the language of the Proposition...and, oh, they're incredibly happy about it. It's crystal clear, they say. The voters, in good conscience, voted to nullify all existing same-sex marriages. I can see them. Rocking back and forth on their heels, hands behind their backs, smug, satisfied little smiles on their faces.

This is always the point I have to get back to - as an atheist, I'm uncomfortable with religion, mostly because of religion's long history of not-so-nice behavior towards those that disagree with it (the same can be said of states, admittedly). Would I like to see people give up on religion? Yeah, probably. But here's the difference - I want to bring it into the marketplace of ideas and let it fall where it may. I'm not looking to legalize or make illegal any religion or religious belief. I don't fall back on the court system to get my opinions across. I've been accused of all sorts of close-mindedness, brutishness, rudeness, offensive behavior, etc. Some of that may be true, but I think the majority of it comes from the fact that religion and all other manner of pseudo-scientific flim-flam has been spoken about in such hushed tones for so long, that whenever someone speaks about them normally, it sounds like they're shouting.

"I don't believe in God. I think it's patently absurd, and while I can't absolutely disprove the concept, I think it's highly unlikely. Here's why..."

Most people claim that the above statement is ranting, highly offensive, or worse...I think it's pretty even toned. I'd say the same about psychic abilities, homeopathy, Zeus, Vishnu, Vecna, Hextor, alien abductions, the LHC destroying the world, and a host of other things, and a lot of people laugh along with these things...but, when I say "God," it's a lightning rod, apparently. I just don't think anything should be granted such sacred status. Sorry, kids.

So, all this is to say...You, you people who sponsor and bankroll Prop 8 and conducted campaigns of lies and misinformation, you people who feel like martyrs for supporting it...you are all snakes-in-the-grass, low, vile, mean, cruel, snooping, intrusive, abhorrent, despicable, hypocritical, scumbags.

Oh, and for the more childish amongst us, "Fuckers!"

Now, note. This is just my personal opinion, and I'll back it up with my reasons if anyone really wants to call me on it.

And people ask me "what's the harm" of religion...destroying the lives of those not even involved. That's one harm.

Read More...

Summary only...

Preparing for Atheist Martyrdom

I'm regularly stunned into silence by things I come across, though often for very different reasons. I'll let you guess my reasons for this one:

Video embedding disabled, follow the link.

Ahem *cough*. Well, that sounds pretty bad. You were just sitting there, worshiping your little hearts out. And some mean, nasty gays came along and ruined the party. Threw coffee on you, even? Man...that must have burned. So badly it didn't leave a discernible mark. Oh, sorry, that's a bit of snark coming through. Wait...wait, what? You were preparing for martyrdom? MARTYRDOM?! Okay, we've hit crazy land. I'm sorry.

Full story below the fold:

Apparently what went down was something along these lines: a group of christians regularly goes into the Castro district of San Francisco, for about the past 3 years. They sit down on a corner and sing their songs and praise the Jesus. Also, they try to convert people and tell them about their sinful and hell-oriented ways. Nice folks, those. "Hey, Jesus is great, you're going to die in a fire! Kthxbye!" Sort of a hate the sin, love the sinner type thing...which really just turns into hate the sin, restrict and oppress and (oops!) hate the sinner.

Oh, and of course, Bill O'Reilly picks up the story and talks to the woman who was "beaten with a Bible." Notice the inconsistencies in the two stories. In the first, the Bible was ripped out of her hands. In this one, she was just sitting there and someone picked it up. And the police saw it. But they didn't see it. And they didn't arrest him, because she didn't want to press charges, even though they're legally required to if they witness an assault. And Bill, to his small credit, actually mentions this, but then just lets it go. Ah, hard hitting journalism.

Oh, and you notice the few clips that Bill shows there. They're from this video, which at the moment is the only footage I know of the whole event:


Oh...riot gear? You mean the one dude with a helmet and kevlar? ...FUCK!

Alright, let me break this down as best I can, though I feel that Abbie over at ERV has already done a better job.

If you want to be a jackass and go to a district of a people that you have just stripped of one of their legal rights, set up shop in front of a monument of a man who had just died the week before and was well known for his fight in the gay-rights movement, and sing your happy songs about the Jeebus and how Prop 8 passed (you know...in California...), and tell anyone who asks that they need to come to Jesus and be cured of their homosexuality...that's fine. It's within your free speech rights.

If people in that district are horribly offended by you and your actions and your continued holier-than-thou gloating and want you to leave them alone, that's fine too. If they want to have a peaceful protest and march you out peacefully, well, public demonstration.

Violence should not be condoned in these situations, and according to the police, there was no violence. One guy apparently throw an iced coffee at some of the christian group, but he was hauled off by other gay men to the police.

Ugh! The self-righteous and pompousness gets to me, especially this early in the morning.

Oh, and what's that you say? Our economy is failing because we don't say Merry Christmas?! Well! Okay! That does it! I'm out, I'm done with the human community. I'm packing it up. I'm moving to the Satellite of Love and am just going to build some friggen robots and watch movies. Movies like Mad Max, which, apparently, we're going to be emulating soon if we don't say MERRY EFFING CHRISTMAS to one another and smile!

AGGGGH!

Nevermind the fact that religiosity in a 1st world democracy correlates with absolutely offensive behavior. Nevermind that it wasn't the atheists in charge of government, or the banks, or regulatory agencies, or the significant block of people buying up sub-prime mortgages...but no, no, no. It's the atheists' fault. Of course it is! We don't celebrate Christmas! Well...wait, actually, most of us do. We just celebrate it secularly. We still say Merry Christmas...oh, oh, I'm sorry. I just let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Sorry for the rant. But. For Christ's cracker-sake, people. Are we getting that stupid and gullible?

Read More...

Summary only...

Savage Love on Proposition 8

This is an interesting video in many respects.

It's a conversation between Dan Savage, aka, Savage Love with D.L. Hughley, who has a new segment on CNN. Now, I'll admit. I frequently read Dan's syndicated column in the A.V. Club. I think he's a great writer and offers some good advice. So, in the interest of full disclosure, yes, indeed, I am biased towards supporting Dan in this. I also found his response to Proposition 8 very poignant and funny.

One of the most fascinating elements to me is Hughley's comments about his own background and how minorities might have felt looking at the ballot - basically the idea that there is no section for "I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I don't think the government should be involved." Well, to me, that's mealy-mouthed. The second clause of that sentence seems to be much more important. I.e., while I may not agree with a particular lifestyle, if it is my principle that it is a matter in which the government should not get involved, the answer is to check the option where the government does not get involved. Leave it up to the states, or to individual citizens. There's your answer. There is no need for an additional check bullet.

This is not to say that I don't understand where Hughley's coming from, or that I want to disenfranchise his religious conscience. He is fully able to argue what he wants from that viewpoint, but when it comes to a government policy decision, if he really believes that it should not be a government matter (as other blacks that he spoke with apparently did), then that is what they should vote for. Instead, apparently, if Hughley's anecdotal evidence can be taken at face value, we have people who strongly disagree with government involvement in this issue, but are willing to allow it anyway on the basis of a religious conviction. This is the pernicious aspect.

So, what are we left to do? We can argue, with John Rawls, that comprehensive doctrines (such as religions or overriding philosophies) have to be left out of the political process - we have to agree to the basis of public reason and that justice is free-standing - it can be arrived at purely through rational argument. Now, this sounds pleasant, but seems to be internally inconsistent - it seems that you are asking for an impossible promise - to have people admit that their comprehensive doctrines are irrational and do not matter for questions of public policy. No true religious adherent agrees with this - it's inconsistent in that it makes a comprehensive doctrine non-comprehensive.

Another solution, a la Franklin Gamwell, that it is true that the "comprehensive question" is a rational one, and so despite what some doctrines may claim for themselves, they can be debated rationally. They should be allowed to enter and stand their own in the public arena and fall where they may. The major danger of this, of course, is that you have a great deal of religions (especially in Christian circles) that claim their faith is inherently irrational (despite the long history of apologetics and medieval scholasticism...but who cares for history, right?) and thus, you run the risk of utterly disintegrating democracy. Our choices at that point are rather undemocratic - disenfranchise those who refuse to play by the rules of public reason and democracy (the Jehovah's Witnesses have sort of self-segregated on this matter), lock them up, or take over by force...if you want democracy to continue. Otherwise, you have the rule of an unruly, authoritarian, and dangerous mob.

Democracy is a fragile, fragile thing. We have fought for a long time to even begin to establish it, and it is nowhere near perfect. We have to constantly work at it, and we see continued efforts to erode the democratic tradition that we have inherited. This should be a matter of major concern for you all.

Both Hughley and Savage back away on the "civil rights" issue. I think Savage's comment is coherent, and probably true...this is not the scope of The Civil Rights Movement, but it is an incredibly important civil rights issue on its own. We have to ask ourselves these questions:

1) Is this person given human rights? I.e., are they a human being?
2) Is this person a citizen, and thus granted the rights of a citizen?
3) If they are human and a citizen, then why are they not allowed the same rights as other citizens? What coherent, "reasonable" arguments can be offered for such restrictions on their rights and privileges?

For example, we do not allow convicted felons to vote. They have broken the "contract" of the civil society, and so have lost some of their rights. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the restriction on the right to vote, but that may be an issue for another post. This is a question about marriage, however, as well as general discrimination throughout society for a group of people arbitrary defined by their sexual orientation. In this important sense, this is every bit a civil rights issue.

I'm sure Jason can come up with a much better and more coherent set of questions/responses to this, and I hope that you'll respond.

Lastly, at the end of the interview, Hughley mentions that he has never met a black atheist. Greydon Square would be one notable figure. It is an interesting problem though - minorities are unrepresented in free-thinker/atheist communities, probably because of the long religious tradition of these communities and the focus on a more practiced, instead of conceptual, religion. It's every bit as dangerous to come out as an atheist in these communities as it is to come out as homosexual.

Dan Savage, I hope you realize that you have a large body of support from the non-religious community, and I hope that you and others will see the similarities of our struggles and desires. We've reached an interesting point in this political climate, and I'm eager to see what we can do to change it.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Which Keith Olbermann Gets it Right

I don't often do this, but I'm going to give a shout-out to Keith Olbermann. I think that he has summed up the issue nicely. Not perfectly, but very well.



Keith, I hope someone in that studio gave you a slow-clap. I know I did.

Here's a more stable link with a transcript of the talk.

Also, something completely beautiful:

Galapagos from Darek Sepiolo on Vimeo.

From Darek Sepiolo. Just, magnificent.

Tip o' the blogging hat to Chuck for these.

Read More...

Summary only...

More on Mormons

The idiocy doesn't stop.

Proposition 8 passed, as I talked about before, here and here. Now more and more information about the Mormon connection to it is coming out.

For one, they sent this letter to all their churches in California.

Then there's the fallout...

The passage of Proposition 8 sparked a lot of demonstrations, and a lot targeted specifically against the Mormons, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as they so prefer to be called. There's been a lot of backlash against the demonstrators, summed up shortly by this guy. Read that next to last sentence:

Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?

Ahh...The stupidity...it burns.

Let's think for a minute. There are a few possibilities here. This guy might actually acknowledge that the world is older than humans, and thus, "since the beginning of time" has no real meaning here. Hadrons and leptons do not get married. As far as I know, galaxies don't as well. I have never been invited to a marriage between any Archaea, Bacteria, Fungi, Plants, or the overwhelming majority of animals. Now, I do feel a little snubbed, I'll admit - I imagine paramecia marriages are friggen awesome. So...if we take that line (you know, the line of evidence), he's made a huge non-starter.

Let's be kinder and say, "Okay, well, he really just means since the beginnings of humans." Well...that's interesting. "Marriage" has had a huge number of definitions over human history. Hell, as this guy is "Conservatively Minded," let's just take the Bible as an example. There isn't a helluva lot of discussion about marriage laws in there...and what is there is vaguely uncomfortable to most people here. At what age can people be married? At what age can a man have sex with a woman (or girl, as the case may be)? How many wives can a man have? Can a man divorce his wife? Can a wife divorce her husband? Can either of them get re-married? Are there any restrictions on how closely related two individuals can be and still be married? Why is okay for the King to have an entire harem?

There's a reason the Jews developed the Mishnah and the Talmud. A lot of these questions are not dealt with directly in the text, and it was up to the social order and community to decide how they wanted to live.

Now, it's certainly possible that this guy isn't religious (although, I'm highly doubtful of it. "Since the beginning of time" is really a pretty telling statement). If he is not religious...well, then, I don't really see what argument he has to fall back on, given the varied nature and socially-constructed reality of marriage through history. I'm forced to conclude that this guy has an ideal image of marriage, apparently that between a single man and a single woman, and that there is some religious basis for that.

Enter the Mormons.

Now...historically...since this guy wants to bring it up...The Mormons have had a bit of a problem with what they like to call "traditional marriage." We all know this, and it's something that their community still struggles with today. There are still schism groups that operate under laws of polygamy. But, of course, instead of telling their own church-goers what to do and how to be married, they want to enforce their views on everyone else, and basically bankrolled the entire Proposition 8 initiative.

People are rightly a little upset over this.

And the Mormons are upset that people are upset at them. For instance.

"I am appalled at the level of Mormon-bashing that went on during the Proposition 8 campaign and continues to this day," he said. "If this activity were directed against any other church, if someone put up a website that targeted Jews or Catholics in a similar fashion for the mere act of participating in a political campaign, it would be widely and rightfully condemned."

No sir. You do not get to play the victim card. Not yours.

When you have a huge organized movement, with a sizable population, that can bankroll an initiative in one of the largest states in the country, and you can field a presidential candidate who did quite well...No, sir. No, you do not get the victim card.

This comes dangerously close to an ad hominem attack, I know, so let me address this. I am not saying that the Mormons are stupid, evil people who can't fix their own Church and so want to impose their will on everyone else. I'm not saying their history of polygamy is damning to them now. What I am saying is that this is clearly an initiative entirely based on religious grounds to take away rights from a minority group, that used outright lies and discrimination to achieve its means, and is completely guilty of using weasel-words and slimey rhetoric to persuade voters that those in the homosexual community are not quite human, are in danger of "taking over," and that if gays can be married, then some ideo-typical "marriage," which has never existed, will cease to exist.

It's disgusting. And then, to claim the victim card, and to say that if these campaigns were against Jews or Catholics, everyone would find them reprehensible...no, that goes too far. It's not even fatwah-envy. I don't think I have words for how despicable this really is.

Let me put it this way. You, Mormons, can be nice people. You claim a religious and historical basis for your argument about how marriage should be. Religiously...well, that shouldn't be a matter for the law. Historically, you've had your own problems, and continue to have them. Historically, marriage has changed in definition. Historically, we have moved towards giving all human beings basic rights. Historically, "between a man and a woman" is too vague to define what most people think it means, and too specific to not be discrimination against a single minority group. Your arguments are baseless, but you want to play the morality card. And you want to bankroll the morality card. When that comes out, and people are rightly upset at having their rights taken away (and let us not forget the power of precedent), you then want to claim religious freedom and discrimination against yourselves. No. Incorrect. You fail. It's perhaps the most intense act of projection that I've seen in a while.

Here's a kooky idea. How about when people want a voice in government, they are required to pay some sort of membership fee. You know, those things we call taxes. Yes, I know, it's "spreading the wealth," and yes, taxes can be abused. But at their heart, taxes are a membership fee that entitles you to government protection and services. As a citizen, you are expected to pay taxes, and in return, you get the benefit of government programs and a voice in government policies. When you don't pay taxes, you are revealing your non-commitment to the group. When you don't pay taxes and force your opinion into government...well, that's a hostile take-over. If the Mormons, or any other religious group, wants a say in government, let them pay taxes. No more tax-exemption for churches. If they aren't happy with the way our government is running things, let them have a voice as concerned citizens within the system instead of bankrolling propositions from tax-exempt money and playing the holier-than-thou-morality card and out-right-lies card. It's just sickening at this point.

So, to summarize, let me get this straight - you want to "protect marriage" by taking away the right of people to get married. And instead of enforcing your rules within your congregations, you want to enforce your opinions on everyone else in this country...and you expect people to not be upset at you, why, exactly?

For a bit of sanity, I'd recommend Sadly, No! For long-term sanity...I recommend getting involved in politics when and where you can.

Also, major tip o' the hat to Canadian Cynic's post for picking up the issue, and Pharyngula, you know, just in general.

Quick edit update: Here's the commercial that everyone's so upset about:

Now, granted, literally taking away the rings and destroying the marriage licenses of already married couples is over the line. But married gay couples in California are in legal limbo at the moment. This is the fear, and in a lot of ways, I could see how it could become a valid one, if any issue regarding an already-married couple appears, it wouldn't be hard to revoke their license.

Read More...

Summary only...

State of the Union

I suppose I'll be the first to put up my thoughts about Obama's election for this blog. I apologize for the delay, but I think we've all been busy, and...well, celebrating with the rest of Chicago.

We have reached a historic moment in our country. 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr. laid out his vision, we have elected an African-American president. That it finally happened is something to celebrate enthusiastically. That it took so long is a tragedy. From this day on, for children growing up, it will no longer be an impossibility for a non-white to gain our country's highest office. Likewise, I have to hand it to Senator Clinton, and yes, even the cynical and insipid choice of Sarah Palin, to showing that women are not far behind in this.

This is a moment which we should all celebrate, it's a moment in which I have allowed myself to have some slight hope for American politics. It's evidence that we can, grudgingly and sometimes belligerently, overcome ourselves. We can make a more perfect Union, slowly, painfully, and with back-breaking labor. That, to me, has always been the dream of America, something that we have not, and perhaps never can achieve, but we can always work towards it.

However, I am not overflowing with effervesence and joy at the moment. There are many things that are still troubling.

For one, Proposition 8 passed in California. Similar bans on gay marriage passed in Alabama and Florida. Arkansas passed a proposal to ban unwed couples from adopting (basically, to prevent gays and lesbians from adopting children). All of these propositions were motivated by and funded by religious organizations, and they have succeeded in continuing a policy of discrimination in our country. And that's the thing - it's not simply privileging a religious group's interpretation of marriage, or even the majority's opinion on marriage (because, yes, indeed, it did pass with a majority of the vote), but it is simple and outright discrimination against a minority. That is exactly the sort of thing that our Constitution is meant to protect against - the voice of the majority does not have the power to take away the voice of a minority. So, there's one reason to be upset.

We have elected a black president. But what if he were non-Christian? What if he were gay? Or Latino? There are still huge issues of discrimination in America that need to be addressed. Our work is nowhere near done.

The media's over-jubilant proclamations of "post-racial" America are absolutely ridiculous. Of course there are still racists, and there are still those out there who even now are shining their guns and saying they will never follow a black president. Our country remains divided against itself, and it will take work to even begin to fix these deep wounds.

Our economy remains in trouble. The markets have calmed a bit, and perhaps we have hit the bottom of the recession. Perhaps things will begin to climb upwards again. The problem, of course, is that you can only recognize the bottom in hind-sight.

Our foreign relations and social capital have been utterly obliterated in the past eight years. World leaders are making tentative motions towards Obama, and I can only hope that we begin to rebuild some of the good-will that we experienced years ago.

Our civil liberties have been utterly trampled upon, and for the most part, we have grown complacent about it. You hear the occasional angry voice, but most people don't even think about it. I am a strong believer in the need to fight for the rights of citizens against the government, and this is certainly an area where we have much work to do.

Our science and math education is pitiful. I've mentioned this one many times before, so I don't feel the need to blurb it. All I can say is that when we can have people seriously decrying money spent on basic science (i.e. Palin's fruit flies comments) and McCain's "overhead projector" nonsense about a planetarium...and these people are taken seriously...it's not a good sign.

Obama has been elected, but despite McCain's rhetoric, he's still a fairly conservative politician working with a Congress that has largely gone along with Bush's policies over the past eight years, and a Supreme Court which cannot be very warm to him. Our political system has shifted, but it's a small shift. I also worry about the total control the Democrats have. The last times this happened, it didn't turn out well (Carter and Clinton, in case you were wondering). We ended up with Reagan and Bush. Keep that in mind. We have to light a fire under our politicians and keep them in line. Keep them working for the people.

These are only a few of the issues that still face us. There are plenty more, and I encourage you to put some down in the comments, if only to remember them and draw attention to them.

So, overall, I want to say that this is not the time for complacency. Celebrate! Rejoice! Sign unto the hills and valleys! But then we have to put our boots back on and go right back into the trenches. Now, more than ever, there is work to be done to combat discrimination, encroachment on civil liberties, and our faults in foreign policy, education, and research. We have taken a first few staggering and fearful steps forward, but we still clutch at apron strings. We will elect a black president, but we will not call gays and lesbians full human beings. This is not the signs of a perfected Union. It's a sign that we have to take stock of reality around us and do what we can to change it for the better.

I am glad that we have elected Obama. I do not agree with him on everything, and on some of his policies I am outright opposed. I do think he was the better choice, and I was glad to cast my ballot for him. I hope...I sincerely hope...that some of the inspiration he has built in our nation will continue its momentum and people will go out and get involved. As I've gotten older, I have come to expect more of both citizens and the government...I hope that others do not sit down and wait for Obama to change things for them. We have as much work to do as anyone.

I hope this finds you all well and recovering from post-election parties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Proposition 8

A quick post, because I feel it's rather important.



I think this video has some weighty impact, and hopefully it will make a difference to some people. I honestly am beyond the point of understanding how you can say that discriminating on the basis of race is wrong, but discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is A-Okay. It's disgusting, and in this day and age, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

(And yes, here is the contention of the 1st Amendment...basically, so long as you are not inciting violence, I must let you have what opinions you will. And I must allow you to voice them as often as you wish. I'm okay with that, because this does not mean that I am not allowed to argue against you. And, luckily for me, I think the weight of rational and reasonable rule of law (i.e. at least coherent) is on my side. That's the point that many fundamentalists (of whatever variety) never understand - yes, you are free to speak your mind in this country...but you do not have the right not to be offended or argued against. No, not even if you're arguing your religion. Thank you, America, for getting something right so long ago. Can we please return to that?)

Tip O' the Blogging Hat to the Bad Astronomer and Skepchick.

Read More...

Summary only...