It Was Bound to Happen Some Time

Listening to the Neal Boortz show a week or so ago, I found myself in the odd position of agreeing with him. He was talking with a caller about the proposed plan to build a mosque on the site of Ground Zero in Manhattan, where the World Trade towers once stood. Boortz thinks the idea is in extremely poor taste and that in rubs the noses of the American people into what happened there that day.

Later in the call, Boortz commented that in recent times, Islam has been associated with terrorism and sectarian violence more so than other religions, but that this hasn't been always so. He then mentioned that in certain periods in history, Christianity had been just as violent in the name of their faith, referring to the Catholic Inquisition and the witch hunts, among other things. He then said that it was because of the often violent history of the world's religions that he had absolutely no use for organized religion.

For once, he was dead on the money. It was an odd thing to find myself entirely in agreement with him, but even a broken clock is right two times a day.

Telltale Smarminess

I spend a lot of time in my car so I hear quite a bit of radio advertising. One annoying commercial is for Andy Willoughby's 3 Step Plan for work at home businesses. Every commercial starts off with him saying, "How in the world are you, anyway?" in a smarmy tone of voice that oozes fake sincerity, akin to that of the stereotypical used car salesman.

My instant reaction when I heard his smarmy presentation for the first time was to think, "This guy must be a fundamentalist Christian", even though he never mentioned anything religious on the commercial. I'd never heard of this guy, so when I got home I Googled him. And, sure enough, he's a fundie.

This type of image is common among the fundamentalist set. Many of them try to present an image of golly-gee-whiz wholesomeness, complete with the squeaky-clean Howdy Doody haircuts and deer-in-the-headlight expressions. This is combined with a forced earnestness in their tone of voice, that ends up coming across as smarmy, rather than sincere. I don't know why this is so common among fundamentalists, but I'm always able to spot it in a minute, as I did with these radio commercials.

I have news for them. God doesn't like smarmy.

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

A History of Lunacy

Pat Robertson's latest moronic comments about the earthquake in Haiti are just the latest in a history of moronic comments. I'm quite convinced that the man isn't entirely sane and that his lunacy is of a similar nature as what afflicts the anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps.

What follows is a list of Robertson's previous idiocy:

In light of Pat Robertson's most recent outbreak of foot in mouth disease in reference to the school board elections in Dover, PA, here is a small sampling of other moronic things he's said over the years. Makes me wonder why he's running around loose, let alone hosting a TV show.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
–Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

"Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' and 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping."
–Pat Robertson, clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up"
–Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

"That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union."
–Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
–Pat Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
–Pat Robertson

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
–Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

"Well, I totally concur."
–Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
–Pat Robertson

"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court."
–Pat Robertson

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
–Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism

More Thoughts on Religion

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

While trying to come up with something to write about today, I visited a quote site where I found the quote above. The first thing that popped into my mind was that of religion. Wars have been fought over differences of opinion about religion and evangelicals of different faiths, particularly Christianity, attempt to convert others to their faith, believing that uniformity of belief to be a worthy goal to strive for. Not merely content to share their beliefs with those who ask, some attempt to enforce their beliefs by changing laws to conform to such beliefs, while more extreme members of various religions will use literal force to impose their beliefs on others in what they believe is service to their faith.

In contrast, I read an entry on Wilford Tibbetts' blog today about the Amish. Unlike many religious people, whose faith is largely a matter of securing their ticket to heaven, for the Amish, their faith isn't merely a belief, it's a lifestyle. The Amish do not proselytize or spend a lot of time talking about their faith; they quietly live it, while content to allow their neighbors to live according to whatever beliefs they have. They are content to coexist peacefully with their neighbors with different beliefs and lifestyles and have no desire to impose their beliefs on others.

It's too bad that more religious people don't follow the example of the Amish.

Three Types of Religious Skeptics

I've often considered what attracts different people to religion and what purposes religion has served in society. Recently, I've been thinking of the converse: what makes people reject religion and the different reasons why people are either atheists or agnostics.

I think there are several reasons, often depending on each particular person's personality and outlook on life. A few types immediately came to mind:

First, are the scientific types, who reject religion because there is no proof as to its claims, because it defies reason and logic.

Second, are the "pull yourself up by your own boostraps" types, who view religion as a crutch and a haven for the weak who refuse to stand on their own two feet.

Third, are the hedonists and non-conformists who view religion as a series of lists with arbitrary and outmoded rules about moral behavior that are negative in nature. To them, religion can be summed up as "Don't Do This" and see religion as a way to suck all the joy out of life.

These are the three types that most readily come to mind. Personally, as an agnostic, I'm a mixture of reasons one and three. I'm not so much the second reason, because I have no problem with whatever gets people through the night, as it doesn't affect my freedom to do differently.

Feel free to chime in with more types of skeptics and unbelievers.

Religion Salesman

It seems as if I have a homing device to attract the religious of all stripes. I don't know what it is; perhaps it's my air of disrepute that attracts them like moths to a flame.

Recently, they hired a new guy at my place of employment, a squeaky-clean, straight arrow kind of person. I didn't have a problem with him until he started peddling his religion on me. He'd heard that I liked music and had some formal musical training, so he used that as a way to start preaching to me. Starting out innocently enough, he told me that he was the "praise leader" at his church, in charge of providing the music for their services, blah, blah, blah.

After a few moments of this, he got to his point of the entire conversation -- he wanted to know where I went to church. All the fundies do this, as they believe it's their duty to sell their religion to one and all.

Not really caring to discuss my opinion about religion with him, I simply told him that I didn't go, hoping to leave it at that.

No such luck.

He invited me to attend his church, telling me that I could be an asset to their "praise team" with my musical training.

I nearly choked and laughed myself to death all at the same time. Hell, talk about barking up the wrong tree! I'd probably burst into flames if I ever set foot into his smarmy, fundamentalist church.

Still not wanting to discuss religion in a work setting, I merely declined, citing the fact that I'm scheduled to work every Sunday.

Fortunately, at this moment, he had to get back to work, so I was spared being more blunt with him. But I'm guessing that some time soon, I'll have to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

Faulty Logic

The other night I was changing stations while listening to the radio in the car. I happened upon a station where they were talking about a survey of Americans who had been married at least once and it said that out of that groups, 76% had been married only once, 20% had been married twice, and only 5% had been married three times. A spokesman for the religious right group, Focus on the Family, said that the results were proof positive that most Americans still believe in and supported "biblical marriage".

Feel free to roll your eyes now.

Before I comment I on the faulty logic surrounding this conclusion, I have to point out that Christians didn't invent marriage; that marriage existed well before the Abrahamic religions did. One should also be aware that there's more than one kind of marriage mentioned in the Bible. So one would have to ask "Which type of so-called 'biblical marriage' are you talking about?"

But let us return to the original faulty assumptions made here.

First of all, the 76% of people who had been married once in their lifetimes were not necessarily currently married -- they'd just been married only once in their lives. This included widowed and divorced people, as well as the currently married.

It's quite possible that many of those not currently married may have simply chosen to live with any subsequent romantic partners and decided not to involve the government or the church in any new relationships. In other words, such people remaining legally single had nothing to do with any adherence to fundamentalist ideas about marriage. Similarly, there are no doubt many others who hadn't found another partner yet at the time of the survey, but who are open to being married again.

Secondly, out of the 25% who have been married more than once, this includes widowed people who have married again. Are these FotF fundamentalists saying that it's "unChristian" to be married more than once regardless of circumstances? I'm guessing that quite a number of religious people would beg to differ on this point.

Third, it would seem to me that many people who have a string of failed marriages and have several divorces under their belts have a misplaced belief in the institution of marriage and would do better not involving the legal system in their personal, intimate relationships in the first place. Marriage doesn't fit everyone and there's no shame in that.

Using myself as an example, I've only been legally married once, but they're definitely barking up the wrong tree if they think I'm a supporter of "biblical marriage". I'm one of those people in the third category who is better off remaining legally unencumbered, as marriage as it is currently understood is a bad fit for my non-monogamous, libertine lifestyle. Unlike those who have several marriages and divorces under their belts, I learned my lesson the first time.

Thoughts?

Hypocrisy: The True Amorality

While idly browsing the net today, I came upon a most interesting post that expressed similar ideas to my own about the recent flurry of public moral hypocrisy we’ve seen lately on the news. What caught my interest about this post was that it came from the other side of the aisle from my own thoughts; that of the social conservative.

What follows below are my comments on this post. To better understand my comments, ead the original article first:

Why Traditionalists Should Prefer Libertines to Hypocrites

My response to this post:

Coming from the other side of the aisle, as an open, unrepentent libertine, I have to thoroughly agree with your thoughts on this matter. I’ve expressed similar thoughts on my own blog, albeit coming from the opposite side of the aisle.

In fact, I’ve had many traditionalists express similar thoughts to me; that they respect me because I am open and honest about who and what I am, without excuse or apology.

And I find it amusing, that as conservative Christians avoid company with the libertine, I tend to avoid association with the conservative Christian. I don’t avoid them as marriage partners, however, because I’ve decided that marriage as is currently defined is not a good fit for me, considering the way I’ve chosen to live my life.

Like you, I have no respect for the hypocrite; the one who gives lip service to conservative beliefs, while secretly engaging in more libertine behaviors. Just as you do, I highly value honesty and integrity in others.

Also like you, I believe that I am a moral person, even if my moral tenets differ in some key respects from yours.

Though I do not believe in sexual or emotional exclusivity of any kind, my behavior, which is congruent with my beliefs, is not “infidelity”. “Fidelity” is to honor the promises that one has made. Because I never promise to be exclusive to anyone, my non-monogamous behavior cannot be described as “infidelity”.

The core of my moral beliefs is the Golden Rule; to treat others as I would wish to be treated. Because I do not expect sexual fidelity from others, my own behavior is congruent with this tenet.

I believe true amorality resides not in the conservative traditionalist nor the honest libertine, but rather in the two-faced hypocrites you describe.

Hell on Earth

Maybe this world is another planet's hell !
--Unknown

I've never believed in the concept of some people going to any sort of hell after they die. I've always maintained that if there's a hell, it's right here on Earth.

I'm not sure there's an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is, as I hope I will see my parents and other loved ones again one day.

But I can't wrap my mind around the idea of there being an afterlife and some people spending an eternity in the torment of a hell, especially for such silly reasons as picking the wrong god to worship and the like. It's easier to imagine people like Hitler in hell, but I usually think of such people being consigned to oblivion instead.

Thoughts?

The Ego of God

As my regular readers know, I often listen to radio broadcasts of those with whom I disagree, searching for ranty blogging fodder. The other night, while monitoring a Focus on the Family broadcast, they had a couple on the show who had recently lost one of their young children.

The mother went on about she railed against God for taking her child, wondering why a loving God would allow such a thing because she couldn't see a loving God being indifferent to her suffering. She couldn't what purpose, what good could come from the death of a child.

She then went on to say that she eventually realized that her child's death did serve a purpose, as it served to "glorify God". I'm not quite sure what she meant by this; perhaps by how she and her husband as Christians handled their grief served as an example to others and how others in their faith community responded.to their tragedy. I don't know, as she didn't make it all that clear.

I nearly choked when I heard her serenely assert that God allowed her child to die in order that He/She/It could be glorified. I don't know about her, but I couldn't worship a God whose ego was so big that it required the occasional sacrifice of little children for the purpose of being "glorified". Just how shaky is the Big Guy's self-esteem, anyway?

Maybe the idea of an attention whore deity allowing a child to die for the purposes of "glorification" comforted this woman, but I find the idea completely appalling and offensive.

There is no happy reason for the death of a child, but I'd rather live with that uncertainty than to think my child died to stroke the ego of God. If I were a religious person, such a thing would destroy my faith rather than make it stronger.

Thoughts?

Skewed Morality

In my book, there’s something seriously wrong with a church that would protect priests who molest children, but would immediately seek to excommunicate a priest who supports the ordination of female priests.

Nearly 5,000 Catholic priests in the U.S. have sexually abused over 12,000 Catholic children. The usual response from the Catholic heirarchy is not to excommunicate such priests, but rather their parishes or dioceses are taken away or they are simply transferred to another one. Essentially, such problems are swept under the rug, even if the priest in question has a long history of such behavior.

Father Roy Bourgeois, however, who helped celebrate the ordination mass in August 2008 for a female priest, Janice Sevre-Duszynska, was swiftly informed by the Vatican that he had 30 days to renounce his actions or face excommunication. The case is currently still up in the air, according to my search on Google.

The Catholic Church has had a 30 percent decline in priests between 1965 and 2000. Good. A church with such a twisted sense of morality deserves to wither away and die.

Marriage and Children

Many people who oppose same-sex marriage base their opposition on their belief that the purpose of marriage is to provide a legal structure in which to raise children, preferably of their own biological origin.

But I believe that issues concerning children and those concerning marriage should be viewed as separately for a couple of reasons.

One is the fact that people marry for a wide variety of reasons these days with almost no one marrying for the single purpose of raising children. People most often marry now for love and because they want to share their lives as a legally and socially recognized unit. And though many people would be happy to just live together to achieve those goals, they enter into legal marriage in order to gain the myriad legal benefits that come with making their union official.

Though most people do have children, it’s almost never their sole reason for getting married in the first place. It’s not as if couples who love one another but who don’t want to or can’t have children decide to simply remain friends because of that fact.

People who have no intention of having children, along with infertile people and people past reproductive age get married all the time, and no one is clamoring to remove their legal rights to do so — as long as they are heterosexual, of course.

Secondly, the law no longer distinguishes between children born to married parents and those born to unmarried parents. “Illegitimacy” has not been a legal status for non-marital children since the late 60s. The law now focuses on how children relate to their parents, rather than so much on how their parents relate to each other.

Hence, this makes opposition to same sex marriage for the “marriage is for having children” reason moot and invalid.

Negative Attitudes Toward Food and Sex Come From the Same Source

Yet again, Alternet has giving me blogging fodder. In the article in questions, Which Is Worse These Days: Being Called Fat or Whore by Charlotte Hilton Andersen, the author explores the idea:

In an interesting switch, food and sex have completely reversed their roles in society. And all within only a matter of two generations.

My response to the article follows below:

Negative Attitudes Toward Food and Sex Come From the Same Source

We must remember that our country's culture has a strong Calvinist streak running through it, starting with the Puritans.

Calvinism values ascetic self-denial and is suspicious of anything that even suggests excess, which would include food and sex. It takes a negative view of human nature, with its doctrine of "total depravity", which takes the view every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. Thus, all the basic drives that go along with being human, which would include the drive to eat and to mate, believing that such things, while necessary for the survival of the species, must be tightly controlled.

In both the instances cited in this article, food and sex, what is being resisted is hedonism, which is a worldview which values pleasure for its own sake. Eating and having sex, are both naturally pleasurable activities. A sex hedonist is a libertine, while a food hedonist is a gourmand.

Naturally, both forms of hedonism offend the Calvinist mentality, as Calvinism is suspicious of anything that indicates that people are having too much of a good time, as such pursuits take away from focusing on God.

Though most people today who take a negative attitude against those who enjoy sex and/or food "too much" in their opinion, are generally not consciously aware of the Calvinist roots of their beliefs, such roots are so deeply embedded in our culture as to be sacred cows.

Thus, many of those who rail against "whores" and fat people get emotional about it and take on a moralistic tone and cast sex and food hedonists as bad people deserving of public scorn.

And this is precisely what makes such attitudes so hard to root out; they are so deeping woven into our cultural fabric that most people are unaware of the religious roots of it all.

It would be better if people realized that everyone in this life has their own burdens to bear and that no one is perfect or in a position to act as moral judges to others. Pleasure for its own sake isn't bad, but self-righteously meddling into the private lives of others is.

The guiding rule should be, "If it doesn't infringe on your right to do differently, then it's none of your business." Simple enough, I'd think.

Inappropriate Government Meddling

Four years ago, Rebecca Witt and Gary Johnson became the parents of a little girl. The cost of the baby's birth were covered by Medicaid.

Since that time, the hospital has demanded that Johnson repay the $3,800 cost of the birth. At first the hospital demanded he pay it back at 500 dollars a month. Johnson, who makes 8 dollars an hour could not pay such a high bill and the monthly payment was eventually reduced to 50 a month, which is still a strain on a family budget.

But last week, the hospital notified Johnson that the monthly payment was going back up to $500, even though his income has not increased.

Enter the State of Michigan. Five years ago, state lawmakers amended the state's paternity act to waive birthing costs for a father -- if he married the child's mother. So, if Johnson marries Witt, the hospital will cease trying to collect the bill.

Excuse me? The hospital originally sought to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this birth. How on Earth does a marriage license change the fact that the birth was paid for by Medicaid? Does a marriage license suddenly make $3,800 magically re-appear in Medicaid coffers?

Witt and Johnson, though unmarried, have lived together all this time and Johnson supports the family. Whether or not the couple is legally married does not change their living arrangement nor their income in any way.

For once, this issue isn't about money. If it was, the state would seek payment regardless of marital status. Rather, it's all about the government imposing a particular religiously-based version of morality by meddling into the private relationships of citizens.

Indeed, Genesee County Friend of the Court Jack Battles sees it as incentive to maintain the "sanctity of marriage".

Sanctity of marriage? "Sanctity" is a religious notion and the presence or lack of "sanctity" in marriage isn't the function of the state. Rather, civil marriage is a legal classification which deals with the practical benefits that come with marriage. Whatever spiritual element that exists is an entirely private matter between those involved and whatever religious or ethical beliefs they hold.

It would seem instead that to hold couples hostage by causing them to marry under duress in order to save money does more to make a mockery of whatever "sanctity" that may exist in any particular marriage than living together in a common-law relationship could.

Rebecca Witt doesn't believe her marital status should be any of the state's business.

"I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married," she said.

"It is despicable that the state would wave medical bills like a shotgun in the face of a low-income (family)," said Nicky Grist, executive director of the Brooklyn, NY-based Alternatives to Marriage.

I agree. The handling of bills such as these should be based on ability to pay, not on marital status. Let them pay it back with a monthly payment geared toward their income level, even if it takes years to pay it off.

Thoughts?

Arkansas Bans Unmarried Two-Parent Adoptions

On this past election day, Arkansas passed a law that went into effect on January 1st. The law, known as Act 1 reads:

Act 1, the Arkansas Unmarried Parent Adoptive Ban:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Section 1: Adoption and foster care of minors.
(a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.
(b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

This essentially means:

• This proposal bans anyone who is unmarried from serving as a foster or adoptive parent— regardless of sexual orientation
• It affects both private and public adoptions.
• It is unclear whether single people living alone will be prohibited from adopting children.

There is so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to begin.

I think I'll start with the simple fact that there are approximately half a million children in the United States today awaiting adoption, many of whom who have no hope of being placed in foster or adoptive families of any kind before reaching adulthood. In Arkansas, some 3,700 children are in state custody, taken from their homes because of abuse and neglect. Of those, 960 kids (average age: 8.5 years) are available for adoption, said Julie Munsell of the state Department of Human Services. Of the 1,100 foster homes, one-third are headed by single people.

Opponents of Act 1 say the new law could jeopardize a wide range of non-traditional living arrangements, such as co-habitating grandparents raising grandchildren, and are not sure how far-reaching the effect will be.

Conservative proponents of this law simply brush aside the practical difficulties of such a law. John Thomas, vice president of the Arkansas Family Council, a conservative group that pushed to get the initiative on the ballot, said, “I understand that there is a lack of homes, but I refuse to believe that the choice is between a horrible situation and a so-so situation."

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, disagreed, saying that "the only criteria should be who can best provide a loving, permanent home."

Indeed. The presence or lack of a state-issued marriage license is irrelevant and no predictor of a couple's capacity to provide a loving home for a child. In my years on the police force, I saw plenty of neglectful and abusive families of all types. The fact that the parents have a license from the state declaring them official, legal sex partners neither confers magical parenting abilities nor does protect children from shitty, abusive parents. Conversely, the lack of state sanction for one's intimate does not make it follow that one is incapable of providing a loving, permanent home for a child.

It is the quality of the relationship between the parents that matters when judging them to be fit adoptive parents, not the form that relationship takes.

I'd also like to ask Mr Thomas whether he really believes it is better for parentless children to remain warehoused in institutional care rather than being adopted by a loving family, simply because the parents did not seek the licensing of their relationship by the state or the church?

I'd also like to note make legal marriage mandatory for would-be adoptive parents is to impose religiously-based morality on secular laws, making it a violation of the separation of church and state.

I can only hope that this law is soon overturned.

Mormons: Same-Sex Marriage vs. Polygamy

On Alternet recently, I browsed through an article, Mormon Homophobia: Up Close and Personal by Sheldon Rampton. Once again, I found myself responding to a comment that had veered off the point of the original article.

The original comment:

Individual Mormons changing is what changes the church

My sister follows Mormon doctrine to the extent that she bore 7 healthy children and is now, at age 74, grandmother to more than 20. She is the matriarch of this very large family. She is "Mrs. Mormon."

BUT she did not vote for the "Gay Marriage Ban" when it came up in Utah elections. As she expressed it, The problem in Utah is not gay marriage -- it's polygamy.

My response:

The Problem is Forced Marriage of Underage Girls, Not Polygamy, Per Se

Or should I say polygyny, because such Mormons only allow men to have more than one spouse and not the other way around as well.

It's not non-monogamous marriage that is even the problem among such Mormons. It's patriarchal, fundamentalists religion that compels underage girls to marry old men that's the problem.

It would still be as big of a problem if it was just ONE young girl being forced to marry just ONE old man.

So, the problem isn't monogamy vs non-monogamy, per se.

Indeed, the existence of polyamory, which is when both men and women may have multiple spouses, and is engaged in only by fully consenting adults shows that this is so.

Let's focus on the real root of the problem: fundamentalist patriarchal religion.

Your thoughts?

Mormons and Marriage Discrimination

The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which categorically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, was successful in part because of the LDS (Mormon) Church's mobilized support for the issue, despite Mormons being only two percent of the state's population.

According to the Los Angeles Times, monetary support for Proposition 8 from Mormons is estimated to have been about twenty million dollars. Donations from individual Mormons were in response to a letter from church leader read in all LDS congregations in California, urging members do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."

As well as providing financial support to Prop 8, Mormons also hosted websites, formed an outreach organization: Protect Marriage Coalition, posted pro-Prop 8 videos online, and so on.

I think the Mormon stance against same-sex marriage is ironic, considering that the US government forced the LDS church to give up polygyny in 1890, as a pre-requisite to Utah becoming a state.

Perhaps if the US had allowed polygyny and other forms of polygamy to remain legal and aboveboard, we'd not be seeing these renegade Mormon groups forcing underage girls to marry old men, as the government could have applied the same rules to such marriages as they do to monogamous ones (consenting adults only).

One would think the Mormons would be especially sensitive to marriage discrimination, but apparently this isn't the case.

Thoughts?

No Communion For Obama Supporters?

Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, SC has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." He went on to say that "those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Oh, where to begin?

First, using his pulpit to threaten parishioners because of their political choices is inappropriate. It's all well and good to talk about his church's opposition to abortion, but to couch it in political terms is another thing entirely. It is enough for him to talk about the Catholic church's position on abortion, then to leave voters to vote based on their own consciences.

Second, responsible voters choose a candidate according to a wide range of issues, not just a single issue such as abortion. If one uses abortion as the only litmus test for an acceptable candidate, we must remember that Hitler was against abortion, but that hardly made him a worthy candidate to vote for.

It's also interesting to note that Obama opposes the death penalty -- which agrees with another official position of the Catholic Church.

So, why then is Newman being inconsistent and hypocritical by not cautioning voters who voted for pro-death penalty candidates and demanding penance out of them? Does he consider some official Catholic positions on various matters to be more important than others?

Fifty-four percent of Catholic voters in SC voted for Barack Obama, a state which ended up going to McCain in the recent election. It's quite possible that concerns about the economy, health care, the war in Iraq, and so on, took precedence in influencing their choice of candidate, rather than imposing their church's stance on abortion on the American population, most of whom who are not Catholic, through secular law.

Thoughts?

Propostion 8 Passes in California

California has passed Proposition 8, which yet again repudiates same-sex marriage, returning it to a legally unrecognized status. Religious conservatives, who supported Prop 8, made much of the idea of "preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage".

But they're wrong. It wasn't the "sanctity" of marriage that was up for a vote; it was the legality of it.

The idea of sanctity has a religious base, thus is not subject to any law in a country that has the separation of church and state. It is a highly personal and private thing and properly is defined by whatever religious, ethical, or personal tradition one may believe in. It has never been the business of the government, nor should it ever be.

The legality of marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion in our country and never has. This is shown by the fact that getting married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other non-clergy member is legal, where a wedding performed in a church or other house of worship without a civil marriage license is not a legal marriage, though it is a religious one.

Legal marriage has to do with practical benefits bestowed by the government, period. It doesn't concern itself with the emotional aspects of marriage or anyone's idea of sanctity. That's a wholly personal matter, up to those involved and whatever ethical beliefs they have to provide privately.

Even the Bible says to render unto Caesar (government) what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, is "rendering unto Caesar", and has no effect on "what is God's".

Legal same-sex marriage will not affect religious marriage in any way. Houses of worship will be free to offer or deny religious weddings to same sex partners as they always have, as it will not affect their legal rights to be married in any way.

It just boggles my mind that such a basic right was put to the population to vote on, where people are likely to vote against the right to same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, that they think it's "icky", and other reasons that are properly considered to be legally irrelevant. Interracial marriage, for example, was finally legalized in all fifty states by a Supreme Court decision, and was never subject to voting from the general population. If it had, I'm guessing it would still not be legal in all fifty states.

And though I would vote in favor of same sex marriage (and did two years ago, unsuccessfully), I personally believe it's none of my business. I do not think it's my place to decide on the basic civil rights of fellow citizens, as same sex marriage does not affect my rights or my life any way, positively or negatively, Those who voted "yes" to Prop 8 based on religious reasons have effectively imposed their religious beliefs on the rights of others, which violates the separation of church and state in my opinion.

If it were up to me, I'd just abolish legal marriage altogether for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any form of private, personal relationship between consenting adults. As a non-monogamous heterosexual, I strongly believe this.

The practical rights and benefits that currently come with marriage could be granted under Domestic Partnerships that would focus wholly on such practical benefits that come with sharing a household on a long-term basis, and would be granted without regard to the nature of the personal relationship of those involved, sexual or non-sexual. That would be private, as it should be. Marriage would then be defined by those involved and optionally by whatever faith, personal, or ethical tradition those involved might have and would be unrelated and irrelevant to whatever legal benefits one would have as a Domestic Partner.

Thoughts?