Church vs Mandate

I considered jazzing up the title with something like CONTRA-DECEPTION, but this topic has been knocked around so much, I didn’t have the heart. It’s a labor rights issue, and yet both sides of the debate have contorted the conversation until it’s like reading current events on silly putty. Conservatives decry an assault on religious freedom. Liberals rally behind a woman’s right to preventative healthcare. And now our president has decided to grant further exception to the mandate. Are we in an election year or something?

Contrary to popular belief, there IS an exemption for religious employers included in the mandate already. Bloomberg reported that, “Houses of worship and nonprofit religious groups that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith would be exempt, while religious hospitals and universities would not.” Big shocker, people of different faiths work for Catholic-based institutions: professors, nurses, secretaries, janitors, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, probably some Buddhists and atheists in the mix as well. 

So, are religious institutions people too, my friend? 

If anyone has threatened religious freedom and liberty, it’s the Catholic Church. It wants nothing to do with contraception, even when that means denying healthcare options for non-Catholics. Even as groups like the Catholic Health Organization come out in support of women’s contraception. Even as President Obama announces a further compromise to the mandate, asking insurance companies to pay for the services. Even then, Catholics balk. 

Not that I’m insensitive to the beliefs of other people, but we aren’t talking about the right of Catholics to hold beliefs. They can believe what they want about the morning after pill. This is about an employer denying workers a portion of their healthcare coverage. How long before other businesses deny their workers something based on belief? Entire markets would find religion for just that purpose. 

And as an afterthought, I’m not wild about tax exemption for religious institutions; I just don’t have a “league” behind me to organize. Yet.

WESTBORO BAFFLED

by Muther Mayhem

for God Discussion and the Antioch Voice

I’ve followed the exploits of the Westboro Baptist Church for many years, longer than the 24-hour news channels ever could. Back in my day, these “Christians” liked to protest the funerals of men who died of AIDS complications or gay bashings. American’s didn’t like to talk about the gays though, so it didn’t make the news much. I saw enough to make me sick for life.

Which made the recent Supreme Court ruling on Snyder v. Phelps that much harder to accept. The ruling protects the right of Fred Phelps and members of Westboro Baptist Church to hold anti-gay demonstrations outside of funerals for deceased soldiers. Overwhelmingly, the justices claimed that the demonstrations were on public property, on matters of public concern, and conducted peacefully. Eight to one in favor of this opinion, like eight quick punches to my gut.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m disgusted by the Westboro Baptists, but I respect the First Amendment of our Constitution and all the caveats it provides us, including Free Exercise of religious beliefs. Hell, seems like I want freedom of religion for all Americans more than many Christians want it (always so nervous around Muslims and pagans and non-believers). I realize the Westboro Baptists have a right to demonstrate in full view of the public, at gay pride parades and significant court dates and other public functions. I tolerate their offensive signs, like “God hates fags” or “God bless dead soldiers” because I have to.

In the end, none of that is directed at an individual. The Westboro Baptists are swinging their free speech in the air, not connecting to any one person. Each of us has that right.

And even when we talk about intruding on individuals, we must realize that certain people are accessible to the public because of who they are. For example, Barack Obama governs every American, including members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Its members have a right to demonstrate in front of the White House, and to picket with signs that say “God hates Obama”. The same principle applies to any person in the public’s view. The rich and famous donate to charities and pursue agendas all the time. Counter protest is inevitable.

But we’re not talking about any of that in Snyder v. Phelps. The Westboro Baptists made this demonstration extremely personal to Matthew A. Snyder, private citizen and former Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps. They posted announcements of his funeral date and location, they created a spectacle across from the event that resulted in rerouting the motorcade, and finally, as if that wasn’t enough exercise for their free speech, The Westboro Baptists used Snyder as the subject of an online rant about parents raising their children in sin, thus targeting the family as well.

Free speech was never in question in this case. What should have been at issue was the content and methodology of the free speech to determine damages. The Westboro Baptists are an opportunistic pack of media jackals attracting attention to their beliefs. They frequently cross that thin line in the First Amendment between open debate and stalking a private citizen. Justice Samuel Alito expressed it eloquently in his dissenting remarks:

“[Phelps] and other members of their church have strong opinions on certain moral, religious, and political issues, and the First Amendment insures that they have almost limitless opportunities to express their views… It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate.”

Alito goes on to cite several precedents that define the narrow strip of legal turf where free speech becomes assault. And though these qualifications are narrow, they apply in this case.

Not even the Westboro Baptists deny that their protests cause pain and emotional scarring. They don’t contest those charges when dragged before the courts. The Phelps’ strategy is to frame their demonstrations as something other than a series of personal attacks. But many times, they ARE personal, and not just directed at fallen soldiers. They’ve protested individual firefighters, policemen, civil servants, victims of natural disasters and shocking crimes. Never mind the AIDS funerals and gay bashing trials. The Westboro Baptists are vultures preying on the weakest among us: the grief-stricken.

I really wanted that to change last week. More than anything, I want America to respect the dead and those who mourn them. Period. We pull to the right when a funeral procession drives by, don’t we? Our jobs allow us to grieve when a loved one passes, right? I thought if damages were awarded to the Snyders in this case, maybe that would be the evidence other Christians needed to start caring. The obvious exception is the Patriot Guard, motorcycle heroes who travel wherever the Westboro Baptists decide to protest funerals in order to provide a buffer zone between the hate speech and grieving families. What do you suppose that says about the soul of Christianity in America, when our response to funeral protests is left to biker gangs?

There’s a deeper issue lurking beneath the surface here, people, one that’s not about politics or homosexuality at all. These extreme right wing nut jobs call themselves Christians, and they use the Judeo-Christian Bible to spout their hateful rhetoric. I see them demonstrating like they do and I wonder, Where are all the other Christians in this country? Don’t they want to weigh in on this? Don’t they care? Where is the backlash, people? This has exploded far beyond the whole gay thing. A sect of the Christian Church is picketing funerals in this country. Not picketing the idea of funerals in front of some government building, but actual dead soldiers and other private citizens, individually, drawing private moments into the public eye.

I’m calling Christians out on this one. I know there are many, many rational members who could step forward, not on behalf of government, but rather on behalf of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. Do we really have to go into faith without works here? Exercise freedom of religious expression. Show some compassion for the families by counter demonstrating. Surround those funerals with crowds of quiet, respectful, loving people. Perhaps if enough Christians networked with one another, the funerals of soldiers could even be confidential. At the very least, they could pressure lawmakers to restrict the access nut jobs have to private funerals. Anything but turn the other cheek. Because there are plenty of examples where Christians must tolerate the Westboro Baptists, but personal attacks aren’t among them.

MARRIAGE v. EQUALITY

The success of Prop.H8 has really pissed liberals off. The protests, the email chains, the celebrity calls to action, the tears ... but really, why should people expect any different? Advocates of gay marriage continue fighting this battle on the opposition’s turf, and they get beaten every time. Stop bahsing your heads against this brick wall! You must change tactics!!

'Marriage' is a religious institution. Argue against that point all you want, but as long as the customs and taboos of matrimony are determined by cultural realities, American marriage will involve Judeo-Christianity. You can thank the Protestant Reformation for that, and also the Counter Reformation for transforming the whole affair into a contest for human souls. Marriage has been associated with religion for a long time, and it will be extremely difficult to erase that from our collective consciousness.

I recognize there are such things as “civil marriages.” My father and his second wife held one, and it was blissfully free of religious influence. But therein lies a crucial point to all this. The United States government adopted marriage as a means of legally uniting two people. And further, it’s made no attempt to divorce civil marriage from the ideas traditionally (read, religiously) tied to such a union. That’s an area our elected officials want the people to decide for ourselves (in all our cultural wisdom.) It’s when the people decide to disenfranchise minorities that our government should prove to us they are NOT espousing religious ideas … and so far, they are not.

There’s a lot riding on this gay marriage thing for the Religious Right. Even the language used by conservatives tells us their agenda: that marriage is a 'sacred' institution, and that a constitutional amendment will preserve the 'sanctity' of the union. Homosexual unions do not mesh with their beliefs about reality. Beliefs like an almighty god who frowns on certain sexual behavior, actually causes hurricanes and floods because of sexual 'deviance'. Beliefs like the corruption of children from exposure to same sex unions. This is part of a much larger war to the religious, a war of intrusion on their worldview. And as we’ve seen before, there are enough Americans who belong to some branch or sect or schism of Christianity to have a real impact on this issue.

My father’s union, secular though it was in ceremony, is still considered normal in the eyes of the Church and thus not the target of a major political referendum. And there are lots of reasons why heterosexuals might chose civil marriages, most obvious being the issue of cost. But once you stray from cultural norms, the Church storms back into the room to shout.

Prop.H8 was no different. I knew the vote would be close because there were reports of massive evangelical outreach – we’re talking national support – all pouring into select states to knock on doors and influence votes. Again, religious influence, and you can see by this example that change is possible. The churches don’t hold ultimate sway over government, rather over the hearts and minds of the electorate. This religious perception held by so many is the brick wall I want to avoid.

For this reason, I’m asking supporters of the gay and lesbian community to shift their tactics. I say we let go and give back marriage to religious conservatives. That’s right, I said give it back. I don’t believe marriage is truly what gays want. We want the rights and obligations bestowed upon married couples by the federal government, including the right to share property, custody with children, and hospital visitation rights in emergency situations. This is a matter of equality, not sacrament.

When the Religious Right begins to froth over this, our elected officials SHOULD explain the difference between holding beliefs and having government champion those beliefs. Some high ranking official – someone who governs us ALL – should proudly declare that “Anyone can believe certain people should be excluded, but really, when those people pay their taxes, when they contribute to society by holding jobs and generally obeying our laws and customs, WE CANNOT EXCLUDE THEM!!” In fact, our representatives should be sending two messages: one to gays declaring freedom of speech and religious expression, and one to churches stating the nature of government to represent all people equally. And that should be that ... but it’s not.

This issue has become one of separation of Church and State. Our government allows a certain faction of its citizenry to be excluded based on the religious intolerance of a majority. No other country that allows for same sex unions has crumbled as a result. Any evidence to the contrary is slanderous superstition.

But because so many people can ONLY see the issue of marriage from a religious point of view, I say we give it to them. Let marriage return to what it truly is, a ceremonial union between one man and one woman blessed by god. Leave our government to INCLUDE religious ceremonies as one of a few options for matrimony in America. Instead of “intruding” on puritan beliefs, I’m asking us to appeal to our government to create a marital institution that ALL Americans can hold as sacred. Like civil marriages, only without the opportunity for religious nuts to get all bent out of shape. Civil unions.

Now don’t cringe. I want to focus on what’s really important here: legal recognition that is parallel if not same to heterosexuals. Maybe sometime in the future we can convince the Church to relax its collective sphincter about homosexuality. Maybe. But until then, we cannot invite an argument over what is sacred. We just look stupid.

Instead we should be offering an olive branch; asking for the same privileges while backing slowly away from their precious traditions. You know, looking like the good guys by comparison. But we’ll also be positioning ourselves for a Church v. State battle. Because if the religious communities decide that it was REALLY allowing homosexuals rights that was their issue … well … I think that is a battle that we can raise above mere referendum, all the way to the Supreme Court.

BASE INTELLIGENCE

Say what you will about Governor Sarah Palin’s nomination. The fact remains that she accomplished what she came to do: energize the Republican base. The so-called values voters are mesmerized by Palin’s quaint cultural narrative, even when facing numerous problems at home and abroad. Even while other Republicans distance themselves from their own party, the base emerges to dominate the crowds at McCain / Palin rallies.

I really thought I was prepared for this. I thought I had this particular block of the electorate figured out. These were single issue voters in 2004, people who spun the election into a debate on the sanctity of marriage. It was even preached from the pulpits of many churches in southern and western states. I realized then that “Republican base” was a polite way of saying church folk. These voters can be riled up about any ol’ thing in order to place them in a political corner. They take anything else a politician says ON FAITH as long as the one issue they care about is dealt with appropriately. I consider them unwitting participants in an effort to divide and conquer us all.

Sadly, that is not the whole picture. In those days, values voters were part of a winning team. Sure they were haughty and smug, but their views were being championed ... so they were reasonably well behaved. Now the “energy” they exude is anger, fear, and righteous indignation. We’ve heard as much during rallies for the McCain / Palin ticket. Calls to bomb Obama, to kill him, and to accuse him of treason reveal a much darker portrait of the base. The wiggly worm of suggestion has invaded their minds, filling their dreams with terrorists and black liberation theologians. This is the culture of rural white working class voters; down home and country, harkening back to a simpler time when stuff was cheap, men were brave and black folk didn’t run for elected office. To them, being arabic is much different from being a decent, hard working person.

But let’s be sure to remember the religious nature of the Republican base. This point is crucial to understanding them, particularly their use of faith and belief to sustain their political views. To this aim, may I present to you REVEREND ARNOLD CONRAD giving an invocation at a McCain rally in Davenport, Iowa.

“Let’s pray. Our god, we want to honor you today as the sovereign lord of this universe. You tell us in your word that you raise up leaders and you pull them down. So we know that you are in charge of everything that’s going to happen between now and November. And lord, we just appeal to you for this event. We want to ask your blessing on our time together today. Please energize Senator McCain as he seeks to share his vision of what we need to do for the problems that we face as a country. And lord, help us to be good listeners ready to hear what he has to share. I would also add Lord that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November. Because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god – whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah – that his opponent wins … for a variety of reasons. And Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and election day. Lord we commit this time just to you. Move among us. Make your presence very well felt as we are gathered here today. In Jesus name I pray, amen.”

Okay, so besides everything that’s wrong with mixing church and politics, there’s also the irony in this man’s words. Rev. Conrad speaks of his god's reputation as if the last eight years of America under a born-again presidency haven't been enough to shift divine allegiances (if you believe in such things.) No, of course not. What I find most shocking is the nerve of this man to speak to his god in such a manner. You know the fear is palpable when you start telling god what to do!

I bring all this up because it causes me to seriously question the Republican Party. Has the base dragged them into territory that fiscal and federalist conservatives oppose? More on that after the election (‘cuz I’m superstitious.)

DENNYCOSTALISM

I've noticed a distinct increase in the number of Christians who try to peddle their religion at my local Barnes & Noble. It used to be rare and limited to pamphlets left on certain shelves. You could glance through the literature for a few, take it to the bathroom, drop it in the urinal and be done with it. Quick, satisfying, and conveys a message of your own. But not any more ...

Recently, a friend of mine was in the New Age section browsing tarot decks, minding his own business. All of a sudden, he has a New Testament in his face. "I think you should read this instead." And then the Bible pusher disappeared. Now wasn't that sweet? She cared enough to say that she knew best.

My buddy returned to our table and stirred the rest of us into a secular froth. It wasn't the first time this sort of thing had happened, but we were determined to make a stink. We combed that store for twenty minutes before we found her, precious lamb of Christ, cowering next to her six foot five and 250 lbs. boyfriend, careful to keep her eyes in a non religious book the whole time. On some level, they understood what they were doing was wrong, or at least unacceptable according to today's standards. They just ignore that intuitive stuff since it doesn't mesh with their church programming.

We went after it for almost twenty minutes. Naturally, the Christians tried to reserve themselves and turn the other cheek (especially the boyfriend who was majorly pissed). At first, they played it off as innocent. "But, but, I have friends who recommend books to me all the time." Next, a healthy dose of shame. "Why don't you be a man! Be a man about this!!" Then we shifted to how much good Christianity has done for the world. "Just look at the Salvation Army." And then it came ... the freedom clause. "I have the right. It's part of my freedom of religious expression." End of argument.

A red light has been flashing in my brain ever since. WARNING: CONSTITUTIONAL RAPE IN PROGRESS ... PLEASE CONSULT HISTORY FOR DETAILS ...

Now if this were just a couple of crazy kids out peddling Jesus, that's one thing. Some people just don't know how to feel good about themselves unless they latch on to religion. But this same freedom argument has been used more frequently in recent years.

For example, many clergy have argued against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate-crimes registry. They feel such legislation infringes on their freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Yeah, when they preach that god is personally interested in your sex life, they want to do so with a clear conscience. Never mind that such preaching isn't even considered a violent crime and thus privy to federal scrutiny.

What truly interests me is what all this says about the religion in question. For the hate-crimes example, they are worried that they won't be able to spread hatred and guilt over their congregations. They want to preserve their right to ignore historical context and accuracy about portions of their faith, and then plant that same ignorance in others unchecked. As for the Jesus peddlers at my local bookstore, they want the right to tell you they know what's best for you and, further, to do so in public. Apparently the sinners in church grew tired of hearing this from them and stopped coming. They need fresh new faces to show their righteousness off to.

So ... you might be wondering what you can do to stem this tide of zealous bigotry. I'm a big fan of free speech, so we can't exactly force them to shut up. Instead, I suggest we start preaching back to them. It can be part of our "religious" freedom.

Our "good work" is to find people who feel it is their duty to preach truth to us, beat us in the head with their Bibles, or force their commandments and laws into our public sector, and then tell them they are dead wrong. We aren't denying god ... we are denying the god that is part of their cross-eyed religious tradition. Remember, that god has been carefully described and detailed in their holy text and thus vulnerable to harsh scrutiny. And while you're at it, tell them how shocked and appauled you are that anyone would insist they have a personal relationship with something they describe as the greatest, most powerful and all knowing thing in the universe. They simply don't look all that special.

And if they get belligerent and insist that you name your religious affiliations ... tell 'em you're a Dennycostal. And then send 'em my way.

GRAVEN IMAGERY

A friend of mine recently brought to my attention a video on YouTube that I just have to share. It is entitled "Big Butter Jesus", performed by Heywood Banks and made popular on the Bob and Tom Morning Show. Check it out.



I've only ever heard it refered to as the Touchdown Jesus statue, but Big Butter Jesus works just as well. Yes I know it's country, but the content is what counts. Thanks to my friend Jason for sharing this with me. Rest assured, I pissed myself a little with devilish glee.

And while I'm on this subject, I must relate my one and only Solid Rock Church story. I happened to be refueling my car one day while in a nun's habit when who should appear but a bus load of Solid Rockers. They saw a man in women's apparel and immediately approached me with literature. "We just want you to know we love you," they said, and if I hadn't been staring at their self righteous faces I might have believed them.

After a few moments of uncomfortable banter I was able to steer the conversation toward Big Butter (Touchdown) Jesus. When I asked what compelled them to erect such a graven image, they assured me it was winning souls off the interstate for Christ. They said it cost $10,000 of pure love money tithed by their monsterous congregation, and that every last member agreed it was the best use for such a tidy sum. Furthermore, they were shocked when I suggested more tangible forms of community outreach, things like feeding the homeless, clothing the less fortunate, or substance abuse counciling. I guess "loving others" by example only sounds good in the bible.

You don't believe me?? Check out this picture snapped by Father Patty O'Phile!

Incidentally, I did my research on that statue and found they wasted over $35,000 on it ... and the damn thing looks as if it's falling apart. But one thing they got right was how everyone involved felt like it was a great idea. Perhaps they got their inspiration from the anatomically correct horse statue flashing its goods in the next lot over.

If anyone would like to travel down to Middletown and make out with me in front of this gawd awful embarassment to human progress, let me know. [Offer not valid to skanks]

AND THE AWARD FOR BLASPHEMY GOES TO ...

Let me hurry and discuss this whole Kathy Griffin fiasco before my freedom of speech is completely gone. During her Emmy acceptance speech, Miss Griffin boldly denied Christ's involvement in her winning the award. Her comment went like this:

“A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus … Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus; this award is my god now!”

This colorful comment was enough to enrage Christians not only at her, but also at anyone in the audience who laughed and, eventually, Hollywood in general. Religious nuts have gone so far as to claim it as hate speech against Judeo-Christians. They liken it unto Don Imus’ ethnic slur toward black women. Can you believe it? You better, ‘cuz it’s true. Check out this CNN REPORT for a slice of the so called “debate”.

Excellent point #1: Nothing about what Miss Griffin said was geared toward Christians. She did not ask Christians or Catholics to “suck it”, nor did she make any attempt to slander their own adherence to the sun god. She made a cultural observation about how people feel the need to thank Jesus or God whenever they receive an award, win a game, or accomplish virtually anything in their lives. She was giving HERSELF full credit for her accomplishment, and rightly so.

Excellent point #2: In this country, a person’s freedom to follow their religious inclinations is guaranteed. This DOES NOT require the rest of us to pay similar homage to such ideas. It does not make those ideas free from scrutiny. Claims of hate speech and bigotry are petty ways for religious people to keep the questioning of their beliefs in check, that’s all.

Excellent point #3: Asking people in a free society to respect every imaginary idea you hold sacred is an insult. By your reaction, you are asking everyone to respect Jesus Christ whether they believe in him or (in Kathy’s case) not. Now, if you asked us to respect the ideas of cooperation or democracy or justice or compassion or any number of other concepts which benefit the Whole, that would be reasonable. You are not asking that. You want everyone to hold the figurehead of your religion, a character who you yourselves do not fully understand, with the utmost respect and admiration. Not doing so enrages you. Get over it.

Excellent point #4: Equating this situation with the Muslim outrage toward a cartoon of their prophet DOES NOT support your argument. Actually, it weakens it. Muslims have every right to expect their flocks to respect Allah; they have no right to expect that from the rest of the world. In fact, their violent actions negate any respect from being earned, especially when they justify their violence using the religion such a prophet stands for. By claiming this rationale as their own, Christians have revealed their fascist desire to force everyone to raise Jesus Christ above all else. I will fight this particularly giddy logic to my bitter end.

I applaud Kathy Griffin.

HEATHEN'S PARADISE

A popular defense for continued belief in religion is one of quiet despair. After you’ve pointed out the numerous inconsistencies in scripture, shown how moral precepts shift to follow cultural change, and explained away any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, believers will defend their faith by telling you religion is the best way to foster morality. The Washington Post recently published an ARTICLE that illustrates such a claim.

Would humanity be selfish, power hungry, and violent without the influences of religion? I dare say we won’t learn the answer to that question any time soon. I’ve already posted MY VIEWS on why our basic morality does not originate from any form of religion. Uncertainty about our existence is no longer enough to dissuade us from adhering to certain cooperative values that better our chances for survival.

But to argue that humanity would devolve into anarchy without religion is to grossly underestimate our potential. What we are dealing with is a brazen fear that comes from even contemplating a world without a supernatural presence, one which we have become dependent upon. I would like to address that fear.

It is true that people can find comfort and purpose from religion. It is true that people can be deterred from certain forms of immorality through religion, especially if they believe God is actively watching every move they make. These facts certainly do not prove that religion is true, nor do they provide us with sufficient reason to allow it to dominate human consciousness. Indeed, it is possible for religious people to do harm in the world (sometimes even in the name of their gods). It is also true that having your beliefs spoon fed to you limits your free will and involvement in your own life.

At their root, religious morals and values are IDEAS that have come from mankind’s interpretation of the world. They are by no means the only ideas ever to come up in our consciousness. We've realized the importance of knowing ourselves. We figured out the best way to understand reality is through empirical study. We created democracy to provide every person’s ideas equal chance at success (while still leaving them vulnerable to scrutiny and revision). This tells us that we have the potential to produce concepts grounded in reason, and follow them without guidance (or threat) from a divine being.

The claim that society would collapse into anarchy without religion is patently false. Atheists, for example, use empirical evidence to guide their lives, evidence that is grounded in physical and behavioral science. Their own DEFINITION contains values every man can agree on except that they exclude a need for divinity.

The real threat of a society without religion is that we would be forced to actually work toward peace of mind. Without god or gods, we would have only each other to look to, depend upon, and coexist with. Without religious interpretations of right/wrong or good/evil, we would have no choice but to figure those human dilemmas out based on evidence and rational debate. This is not a bad thing, though it frightens people immensely.

It is clear that human nature will include violence, jealousy, fear, and passion with or without religion. But in a society governed by reason, acting on those human qualities would be subjected to intellectual scrutiny and not faith in this or that. We see this working fairly well in nearly every democratic judicial system. Why shouldn’t each of us adopt this way of perceiving the world for ourselves?

THE MORAL CONFORMITY

In recent years, America has seen a tremendous increase in religious ideas permeating politics and the public sphere. Faith based initiatives supported with tax payer dollars, foreign policy driven by apocalyptic motives, government sanctioned discrimination of homosexuals, supreme court judicial nominees from inferior yet religious law schools, the introduction of Sunday school materials in public classrooms, attempts to display the Ten Commandments in courts of law, and a host of state sponsored thought policing under the heading of community values. Even our politicians feel the need to flaunt (or exaggerate) their religious beliefs to gain voter attention.

Such a religious push is utter madness. If nothing else, it is undemocratic to expect a pluralist (including secular humanist) nation to align itself under Judeo-Christian values. But I’m trying to see the whole thing in a positive light. We’ve been afforded a frightening glimpse of what it’s like to have a bible thumper at the helm. King George is an excellent example of how religious people do not have in mind the best interests of others.

Unfortunately, the whole concept of morality has been tainted by religion. Merriam-Webster’s definition of morality includes anything relating to principles of right and wrong behavior, and an individual’s conforming to standards of what is deemed right. This definition excludes mentioning religion, and with good reason.

We do NOT get our most fundamental morals from any sort of religion. If we did, we would still be stoning people for heresy, clinching real estate deals using our women as collateral, bartering in the slave trade, and offering sacrifices so the universe might spin in our favor. The basics of moral behavior (no killing, no stealing, no raping) came about long before the rise of the Church. They appeared SLOWLY as people witnessed the benefits of banning together in societies. Religions may include the moral basics in their dogma, but they have no right to claim people are moral because of religiosity.

With that said, there ARE frivolous morals out there which religious institutions have a heavy hand in. These include subjecting females to males, condemnation of homosexuality, honoring a day of rest from work, dietary restrictions, defining ideas and words as blasphemous, and taboos on masturbation. Especially in today’s world, these concepts make no sense.

Special moral precepts came about by the superstitions of ancient people. They are enforced today by the same sort of thinking, reached using inferior reason based on the teachings of ill-conceived literature. Religious leaders justify this by convincing us they are in touch with cosmic powers. In essence, they are telling us they know what’s best for everyone (when really they only champion what justifies their own beliefs).

Not only do I question their morality, I question their claim to majority status. Tendencies toward social desirability, or a need for approval in social situations, are well understood as a part of being human. Religious leaders capitalize on this, using concepts of guilt and fear to align us under their agenda. They threaten us with eternal torment, just to keep us convinced they are right. No accurate model of morality on frivolous issues can be determined as long as the Church holds so much sway over us.

So what’s a rational person to do? Well, the most educated of our species today do not believe in the theory of a god that is both outside of human understanding and extremely personal to us. It is time we start supporting the views of people who move our society forward, not those who hold it in age old traditions.

We must begin to speak out. We must show that Judeo-Christian values can be harmful when enforced on a free society. We cannot tell people what to believe, but we CAN and we MUST begin to protest when religious values are foisted upon us. In short, we must grow some balls.

And to help with this task, I’ve compiled a short (?) list of church born ethical issues and how they might be argued against. Enjoy.

DEMOCRACY: Is it moral to govern every member of a collective society with special values that not everyone believes in or supports? If so, we’ve forgotten our American history. Early settlers pulled themselves out of state sponsored religion in England. They disliked the idea of theocracy so much that they enacted a division between church and state.

BELIEF: Is it moral to continue believing in the face of outrageous rational opposition to what you believe in? This is the mental equivalent of placing fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalala I can’t hear you lalala”. Believing may only hold individuals back in the short term, but those individuals VOTE, and that affects us all. Accept that we are all human, and that what we believe might eventually be challenged.

HELL: Is it moral to use fear tactics such as the threat of eternal damnation to convince people you are right? If so, you support terrorism. Not only does scaring people to your side threaten free will and expression, it shows a terrible lack of faith in what you say you believe.

CHILDREN: Is it moral to indoctrinate children, the most malleable and vulnerable of minds, into a set of beliefs that are entirely man made and without proof? No child is ever born religious, or much of anything for that matter. Indoctrinating kids into religious ideologies lessens their potential as human beings. Your job as a parent is to help foster functional people, not tiny representations of your ego.

SEX: Is it moral to place so many restrictions and taboos on something as paramount to human existence as our sexuality? If so, you want to control the feelings which occur in people naturally. Get a life! Prohibition has a nasty way of driving people to dysfunctional means to get what is being denied them.

PHELPS HAS RETURNED

[I decided to respond to the following ARTICLE on the Westboro Baptist Church. Check it out, then read below.]

While it is necessary and even fun to scorn the behavior of the Westboro Baptists, scorn is not enough to solve the problem. They have a message, and while it's true they hate many people, they've found a special distaste for homosexuals. For more information, check out their website http://www.godhatesfags.com Happy good time jubilations!

I too remember when Phelps and his "family" protested funerals of those who died of AIDS. Nobody seemed to care when it was merely a gay issue; hence their movement was allowed to grow. More people are getting angry about the military funerals, but ONLY because protesting our fallen soldiers is something we ALL can agree is shameful.

The Westboro Baptists will be allowed to continue their religiously shielded hate as long as the American atmosphere allows it. Their First Amendment right is supported, and sometimes even applauded, by religious conservatives. But freedom of speech only remains free until real damage occurs from what is said. For example, shouting FIRE in a crowded auditorium is not something we are free to do unless there really is a fire.

The problem is really about what the Westboro Baptist Church feels compelled to say, driving its members to the point of defiling an otherwise sacred ceremony. And the truth is, homophobia is not necessarily discouraged in America. Nobody wants to touch the gay issue, unless it's to legislate to keep gay issues further from mainstream society. (Thanks Issue 1).

Hateful religious ideologies like those of Fred Phelps are what fuel much of the “debate” on issues like gay marriage, gay adoption, or even basic recognition of homosexuals as targets for violence and discrimination (special rights my ass). They influence the minds of the people we put in charge to protect and to govern all of us in the United States. They are not merely displayed on poster board during funerals.

Yes, it is deplorable that anyone would seek to protest funerals. But shouldn’t we start examining the beliefs behind such behavior? How can we NOT expect religious radicals to show up when we send such powerful messages to support their cause? I see Fred Phelps and his congregation as a TREMENDOUS opportunity for the American people to actually examine the beliefs which hold an entire minority in check. We just won’t do it. We’d rather hear dozens of motorcycles blaring at a funeral than to meet this issue head on.

Not that it’s easy mind you. I’ve been at it for years and have made little progress. But if we can foster a more accepting attitude for homosexuality, Phelps’s free speech will sound more like shouting fire in a crowded room. And eventually, someone will beat the crap out of him.

EASTER HAS BEEN CANCELLED

WAR OF THE WORLDVIEWS

I’ve kept my opinions on Middle Eastern affairs relatively quiet until now. It’s not an issue, it is issues (plural), all feeding off one another to create chaos tenfold. There’ve been bombings, murders, wars, kidnappings, and now bold statements of uranium enrichment. Nations found within the Western definition of the Middle East greatly vary in governing systems and cultural attitudes. Such a topic deserves much reflection, something most people who actually live there get little chance at. After all, immediate survival tends to command one’s attention.

But we who are safe behind our computer screens DO have the luxury of considering the global implications of what is transpiring in the Middle East. Especially we Americans, since we feel it necessary to blow something up over there at least once a week. Don’t think I’m going soft; I merely feel a lot of the aggressions on display are TKJRs, or Tactical Knee Jerk Reactions. We’re focused on a lot of surface crap like territorial boundaries and oil when what we NEED to focus on is the driving force behind the devastation. No matter the actions or decisions involved, they are all humans equally vulnerable to the same fears and needs.

Now I know that I often harp on the religious aspects of a given topic, but religious discussion is vital to the conflicts at hand. After all, what is religion but an agreed upon system to address the fears and needs of its members. This central issue of religious dogma is a terrible burden, for adherence to religion has a blinding affect on people toward other points of view.

For example, people know there are Jews, Christians, and Muslims living in one general area, but I’m not sure they understand how intimately connected these three religions are. Most important to understand is that they are all Abrahamic traditions, that is, religious ideologies that trace their lineage back to that most famous biblical figure, Abraham. The following is a very crude interpretation of the blossoming of the Abrahamic tree:

First there was Judaism, which established its unique beliefs despite much opposition from polytheistic traditions. Over many generations, Judaism began to find favor with the societies it existed in, until it became corrupted. Along came a man with the kahunas to speak out against Jewish elders, and the people loved him. They loved him so much they established a revised version of Judaism in his honor which eventually became known as Christianity. Many more generations passed, with Christendom suffering the same resistance its predecessor endured, until it too found favor and power within society. This power began to grow and conquer other points of view until it became an oppressive force. And once again, a man appeared who spoke out against the Christian presence, his followers creating yet another religious ideology which is now known as the Islamic faith.

Judaism, Christianity, and the Islamic faith can all be considered revisions of the ideas first spoken to Abraham by the one God himself. Judaism evolved along with the Jews until they “went astray”, to which it evolved AROUND them to establish Christianity, which evolved until it too “went astray”, to which it evolved AROUND them to established Islam. And all of this social evolution was fueled by conflicting opinions, corrupt religious figures, and a brash mishandling of whatever spiritual claims they held over their people. One need only observe the many sects and schisms within each tradition to know this truth.

Ah but since man is a temporal beast fixated on his own survival, the conflict cannot end with lineage and a claim to God’s ideal religious values. God was also known to give land to his chosen people(s), which they quickly covered with sacred sites and temples. Here is where we are focused, on the rights and privileges of religious nuts to their prize. It means we are dealing not only with differing points of view, but also territory and “stuff” sacred to each tradition.

Now that our nation is free from conservative leadership fearful of losing credibility, the reality of the Middle East can come forth. We can see that terrorists and insurgents are really staunch believers in Muhammad and his claims that Judaism and Christianity are both corrupted versions of God’s truth. These people can all be found as citizens to a Nation of Islam (not really found on a map), and they have pledged to do away with the other offending world views at any cost. We can see Jews clinging to ancient customs brought about largely to ensure their survival among oppressive circumstances, fighting for a land they claim was given to them by a transcendental figure. And we can see Christianity supporting Jews simply because it shares some of the same holy scripture and ideas.
Why is it so hard for us to get a handle on the overall conflict at hand? Because so many of us see our own religion as necessary to our existence and, further, a force for Good in the world. It doesn’t even enter our thinking. We lack the ability to look critically at the way we perceive the world. This is not a problem for one particular religion, but all of them. They are all corrupt, and must all preach against other points of view as false in order to seem credible. This creates wars. This will be our downfall.

And you know what? The overwhelming numbers of religious people deserve this self made Hell. Sure it sucks for those of us who choose spirituality over religion, but we are a tiny minority lost in a sea of monkeydom. Those who so desperately need ONE DEFINITE shared experience of life will be denied, ARE BEING DENIED RIGHT NOW, and it is driving them insane.

In a very elaborate way, this conflict stands as a test for humanity. Will religious convictions and existential fears continue to cloud our judgments and thus spin us off toward oblivion? Or will enough people, religious and non, realize the nature of these conflicts and decide on a better possible future? Can we see that every perspective is a different representation of the same feelings and needs in the collective human experience?

My vote is a resounding no, which is why I suggest this comically radical solution. If the children cannot play nice with the toys God gave them, those toys must be taken away. If temples and land and artifacts and idols are the symbols men choose to associate reality with, then we must use those symbols to send a new message, namely that we don’t appreciate their throwing the human race into millennia long struggles for dominance and orthodoxy. I don’t suggest we try and convince these believers of the folly of their actions any longer, nor do I suggest we outright kill them. We evacuate the temples and sites they hold so dear, and blow those things to kingdom come.

Yes I know that all Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not hold hate in their hearts. The problem is, they hold Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in their hearts, allowing for haters and nut jobs to manipulate each for their own agendas. This conflict is the very same conflict which brought each religious tradition into being. Either we allow the human spirit to evolve past them, or we die trying.

MITOCHONDRIAL KIND OF GAL

I have to admit to frequenting many shady chatrooms while in cyberspace. Sometimes you can find good discussion, if yer lucky. It was in one of these rooms where a debate on evolution raged, and where I first heard someone refer to mitochondria as an alternative origin for mankind. Perhaps some of you are rechecking that sentence to see if I said mitochondria and not something similar like ... well I dunno. I didn't know at the time either, so I chalked it up to my misinterpreting what was typed. So fast forward to a day or so later, in a room designated for Religious discussion. A die-hard Christian came in and began proclaiming evidence for his faith and sited, among other things, Mitochondreal Eve. Proof that all of humanity comes from a single source? Meaning one person?? I had to investigate.

But first, so you understand my confusion, when I heard the word mitochondria I was reminded of high school biology and not paying a bit of attention to it. I vaguely recalled hearing the word, so I looked it up. These are single celled organellas, part of a larger structure but no less important, responsible for food distribution and conversion to energy. While I believe we and all life evolved from a very small start, I felt a discussion of evolution where mitochondria are argued against primates was a bit pointless. If either didn't exist, neither would we. Then came that term Mitochondrial Eve.

Oxymoronically enough, this "Eve" was part of a magazine article in Nature, "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution", (1987). Researchers suggested our inheretance of mitochondrial genetic material could be traced back to a single woman, nicknamed Eve by those involved, supposed to have lived 200 or so thousand years ago in Africa. It does not suggest there was one woman that all of human history sprang from. Further, the evidence and conclusions drawn from that study were mere compelling hypothesis, challenged to this day.

So I return to the two instances where the reference was made. The former, from a friend and EMT nurse practitioner, I have yet to see him again to clarify the point. Yet I will further assert to him that, while mitochondria gave humanity a good chance for survival, so did other organisms in our bodies. That doesn't even touch on the neurophysiological traits that furthered us along. If I am in error here and someone knows more on this subject, please post.

As for the latter instance, the ramblings of a Christian non-apologist, this is yet another instance where that sort of mentality stops after hearing what it wants to. Perhaps there was a lovely soundbite on the news where "Eve ... genetic material... found to be trace back to single source ... Africa, 200,000 BC" and he wet himself with praise. Taking the entire article into consideration would show that for there to be a single source of mitochondria, there had to be a pool of many who did not possess it. Thus the miracle of Eve (under review).

I'm sorry, I know that last bit sounds katty, but you do it to yerselves. Made for some good research though, so thanks.