The Sorcerer in California with Marriage Infedility...

A few quickies for today, just for the chuckles of it all.

First, a completely straight article about magic in Islam. Now, the more secular or not-believing-in-magic among you, or those of you who just happen to think that religions other than your own are a little kooky, will probably find this somewhat humorous. I'll admit, I do too. I can't help myself. But there is an interesting point to take away from it. Note the descriptions of 1) the rituals performed by the magic-sellers and 2) the rituals performed by the religion-sellers, or, in this case, sheiks. Not so different, eh? Well, actually, that's to be expected. Traditionally there has been a very thin line between "magic" rituals and "religious" rituals. The difference, in some views, is only the kind of person performing the ceremony. You see, to both these people, the magic is real. The sheiks are just on the "good" side and will break a curse for a nominal fee. The "sorcerers" are on the "bad" side and may make or break a curse, for the right price. The rituals are nearly identical, it's just one guy gets to wear a funny robe or hat and claim ultimate divine authority, and the other guy wears a funny robe or hat and claims (usually) some lesser or personal authority. Now, for those of you who want to claim that we are too civilized for that kind of thing, need I remind you there are groups in this country who still practice and believe in faith healing, in praying for more rain or less rain, spiritual anointing, that prayers protect people, and that God may give you what you want if you ask and believe hard enough. A very, very thin line.

Secondly, this article about a recent study. It would seem that, on average, one out of every thirty-three women who regularly attend worship services have had sexual advances made by religious leaders. So, on average, for everyone 100 women in a congregation, 3 have been advanced upon by a religious leader. And two of those three were probably married at the time. Ahh...see, this is what I've tried to tell you before - watch the people who protest the loudest that they are the most moral. They're the ones typically hiding something. See, once you have it so ingrained in your head that you are the morally superior one, you can start writing off discrepancies, because you ARE moral, or God forgives those few discrepancies, and anyway, you're still much better than the rest of THOSE sinners, they must be ten times as worse. It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's one of the oldest tricks in the book. So, to be clear, I'm not saying "moral people aren't moral," I'm saying "people who CLAIM THE HARDEST to moral often are not." It just so happens that religions and religious people like to hold high that particular banner, and so there is a biased population there. Lest we forget Ted Haggard, who only recently has discovered (after years of fire-and-brimstone preaching against gays and divorcees, etc) that his sexuality is "complex" and will take time to resolve, after snorting meth with a gay prostitute...right. Lest we forget California Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who loves having affairs with "really hot" women, enjoys a bit of spanking, and...oh, is so totally against allowing gays the right to marriage in California and is a strong promoter of "traditional family values." Lest we forget all those Catholic priests who...well, you get the idea. This isn't commentary on religion directly, although anyone who knows me knows I have my beef with organized religion, especially when it tries to wiggle its way into policy, but it is something to be noted. Keep a careful eye on those moral vanguard, lest you be disappointed when you find out just how much of con men they are.

Lastly, a straight-faced sarcastic proposal to make divorce illegal in California. I think he's very good. A little obvious with the sarcasm of it all, but very good overall. I've always wondered exactly what people meant by "traditional marriage." It's sort of a moving target. People throw up other words like "Biblical marriage" or "faith-based marriage," but that's really just another place-holder, like "Intelligent Designer" or "God" is for "we don't yet know how this happened." I mean, it would seem to me that polygamy was allowed for quite a few people in the Bible, so long as you were wealthy enough...and there were all sorts of bride-prices, dowries, sacrifices, and feasts that had to go on. I don't see too many people selling slaves along with their daughters, but...maybe that's just me. I also don't see too many Christians basing their marriages off of the Talmudic traditions, but, I guess as much as they like to claim we are a Judeo-Christian nation, there aren't too many Judeo-Christians out there.

The problem is even worse if we try to take an archeological perspective of what a "traditional marriage" would be. It'd be like gathering together a human, sheep, pig, cat, dog, rabbit, horse, ox, bear, dolphin, and mouse and asking "which one is the mammal?" Oh, you can pick one and say it's your favorite, but, as you can maybe guess, the answer's not quite right. So, really, all we have again is a group of people who want everyone else to follow their favorite system, to make everyone adhere to their laws. Now, in a federal sense, an certain bit of this is understood - you obey the traffic laws, giving up some bit of your own freedom, to enjoy the benefit of a mass transportation system. When you get married, there are certain legalities you have to get through, and you pay a tax to enjoy some benefits of the state. Okay, that's fine. But when a particular group, religious or otherwise, wants to legalize its own way of living, and only its own way, there's a bit of a problem. Imagine, if you are Christian, that a Jewish group wants to mandate that only Kosher food can be eaten from now on. Goodbye cheeseburgers, shrimp, and a helluva lot more. They're just protecting the sanctity of food preparation, and doing it in a very tradition-minded way. Do you have a problem with it? God decreed it, lest you forget as you munch on those shrimp cocktails. Now, Paul did indeed say it was okay to break Kosher, but also note that he said you shouldn't do it if it would offend those with whom you were dining. Well, well, if it's going to offend some of the more tradition-minded Jews, you'd probably better stop.

Or imagine if a Muslim group wanted to U.S. to adhere to Sharia law. Would you have a problem with it? What if, just imagine, they were the majority in this country? Would you have a problem with it then? Would you feel that your rights as a group of people are being trampled on? That some religious group is forcing their view of things onto the public through legislation?

There is a solution, though. It's not a perfect one - few are. It's cobbled together and frail, sometimes barely hanging on. It offends a great deal of people, but it allows society to work, however hobbling it may go. The solution is brilliantly simple - no religion, no philosophy, no particular group, even the majority, gets special treatment or free reign in legislation. You are free to practice your own religion, or lack thereof. However, just the same, I am free to practice my own, however different they may be. So long as they do not interfere with each others private rights, there is no problem (I can't kill you because my god told me to. I can refuse to eat cheeseburgers though). So, why don't we take a hint from the Constitution, you police your own religious community, I'll eat some shrimp scampi, and we extend the right of marriage to everyone, regardless of what particular bits of flesh they possess where (legislate only the minimum necessary - need for consent, proof of stability and support if needed, minimum age requirement, and maximum relatedness if-you-so-desire), and we all go home happy.

That's just my two-cents anyway.

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...