I haven't got much today; most of the nation's political class is focusing on key elections across the country, including public referenda on gay rights in Washington and Maine. In Maine, voters are being asked to uphold or deny a law passed in that state's legislature to legalize gay marriage; and in Washington, voters are asked to vote on a bill passed by that state's legislature that grant more legal protections to domestic partners.
As conservative religious groups across the country work to impose their brand of dogma on our legal system and deny basic rights to fellow citizens based on arbitrary, religious-based reasons, I'm reminded of this passage from Simon Schama's "The American Futre":
The implications of the First Amendment have inadvertently, or not, backed America into the great question on which the peace of the whole world, not just the United States, will turn....It's this unavoidable dialogue between faith and freedom, conviction and toleration, that has always been at the heart of American history and which is only crudely characterized as a "church-state separation debate." The unmistakable indifference of the American electorate to evangelical dogmatics in this election year, the clear sense...that evangelical politics has had its day, only comes as a surprise to those beyond America who imagined it would go on and on, eating away at democratic toleration. It's elsewhere in the world that dogma chokes on pluralism - the coexistence of conflicting versions of the best way to redemption - and uses state power to wipe it out. In the United States the Founding Fathers believed instead that religious truth would best be served by keeping the state out of the business of its propagation; that the power of religious engagement would not just survive freedom of conscience but be its noblest consequence. It was a daring bet: that faith and freedom were mutually nourishing. But it paid off and it has made America uniquely qualified to fight the only battle that matters, not General Boykin's quixotic reenactment of the true god against the false idol, but the war of toleration against conformity; the war of a faith that commands obedience against a faith that promises liberty. That, actually turns out to be the big American story.
The irony, then, in the pursuit of barring gays from state-based institutions is that religious groups are working to undermine the very structure of liberty that allowed religion to flourish in the United States.
The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Here are the results. You'll notice that "white evangelical protestants" are the group most likely to approve of the use of torture.
Now this news should be accompanied by a lecture on the difference between causation and correlation. For one, white evangelical Christians tend to be more conservative, so they're more likely to steep themselves in conservative radio, watch Fox News, and hear little or no opinions against torture. For another, it could be white evangelicals are more culturally primed towards violent retribution -- according to some sociologists (and highlighted in Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers"), the South, where most evangelicals live, is influenced by its cultural legacy of its Scots highland code of honor.
And then, of course, this is just a poll.
Still, you'd think, or hope, regular church goers would know the difference between right and wrong. What's going on here? Hubris from chuchgoers, that their faith someone is too comforting, and discourages introspection and self-questioning?
Not that non-church-goers do much better, either. A full forty percent believe torture's okay? Sheesh.
Each time homosexual activists attempt to force their agenda on California, there have been raging, massive, incinerating fires sweeping across the California landscape.
Today, people are running for their lives as 800 California homes have burned down and the firestorm is spreading like a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the radical homosexual anarchists rampage upon the streets of this state demanding the destruction of marriage and family, and the establishment of their socialistic dark vision for society.
And, instead of fires raging in West Hollywood or the Castro or Polk Gulch, they're in places like Yorba Linda, one of the most right-wing parts of California, represented by the single most extreme right kook in the California congressional delegation, corrupt wingnut Gary Miller....
Was God's targeting off? The district has a PVI of R+10! Yorba Linda itself has a Republican voter registration edge of 59.6% Republican and 38.9% Democrat....
God's punishing gays...by burning up a deeply conservative district? That's not exactly much of a disincentive, is it?
When proposition 8 passed in California, it set off a massive series of protests that spanned the entire country, including a march here in Missoula led by our own Jamee Greer. The Mormorn church was also targeted for protest for its leading role in passing the state initiative.
The breadth and energy of the protest, I think, startled a lot of people -- including many of the protesters themselves. Dan Savage explains the surprise in reaction to an LA Timeseditorial that wonders why gays and their allies didn't take to the streets before the election:
Most gay people grow up desperately trying to pass, to blend in; most of us flee to cities where we can live our lives in relative peace and security. We don't go looking for fights. And most gay people walk around without realizing that they've internalized the dynamics of high school hells some of us barely survived: it's better to pass, to stay out of sight, to avoid making waves, lest you attract negative attention, lest you get bashed.
Makes sense, right? After all, can you think of a more neglected group this election? The issue of gay rights was deftly side-stepped by all the major presidential candidates, if it was addressed at all -- and there was nary a peep from the gay community. Shut up, keep your head down, maybe no one will notice, maybe they'll be nice after seeing how quiet you were. Obviously, when California -- innundated by conservative religious money, propaganda, and volunteers -- smacked down gays in the voting booth (by an ever-narrowing margin), the head-down tactic went by the wayside.
Whether gay community's subdued approach to their rights helped or hindered the passage of prop. 8 is moot; but what we do see reinforced here is the notion that many, if not most, of the gay community wants to be folded into popular convention and community mores. The quest for gay marriage isn't about overturning the social structure and "promoting the gay lifestyle," it's about gays wanting to fit in to the existing social structure. The habit of keeping your head down is a tacit acknowledgment to the high school bullies that their opinion matters.
Likewise, I don't see the bulk of the opposition to gay marriage having anything to do with religion or morality -- excluding the True Believers that make up a sliver (albeit a loud sliver) of the electorate -- but instead, again, with convention. Richard Thompson Ford:
Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles-husband and wife-by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role-spouse. Sure, we could call two married men "husbands" and two married women "wives," but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry.
As proof, Ford notes the overwhelming support that gay civil unions have among the electorate -- h*ll, even Governor Palin endorsed civil unions during her debate with VP-elect Biden. Voters begin to balk only when the "m"-word is brought up. And it's likely a reason why young voters don't give a rat's *ss about "protecting" the "sanctity" of marriage: they're already hip to amorphous gender roles. This generation is more likely to see stay-at-home dads and professional moms than that generation warming their rocking chairs at the old-folks homes, who overwhelmingly supported and voted for prop. 8.
It's this reason that a lot of anti-gay-marriage arguments don't make any sense to those of us who support gay marriage. They're really not about gays, or marriage. At first, the arguments tried to depict gays as too corrupt or dangerous for marriage. They can't fit into our civil society because they'd spread disease and immoral behavior (too much shagging). The evidence doesn't fit -- the advent of gay marriage in Massachusetts, for example, apparently didn't drag down that state's leading rank in low divorce rates. And the New York Supreme Court forever recorded its view in its ruling on its gay marriage ban that gays are too moral and stable for marriage: their unparalelled committment serves to discourage frisky, irresponsible straight couples from trying to match their gay betters. The idea that gays would someone ruin the institution of marriage is patently and obviously ridiculous.
Instead the real reaon folks are wary of gay marriage is that they're worried that the neutering of gender roles within a marriage might force them to consider acts that cross gender roles. In short, gay marriage might force dudes to do faggy things like take their daughters to the public library. And forget about ironing! Or baking a cassarole! Or knitting a sweater for Tommy!
How to combat this pervasive, subconscious relationship to gender roles is for others to decided. It might be we'll just have to wait out the old folks. Work on issues that are popular now -- workplace protection and civil unions -- wait a decade for marriage.
On a side note, the question of religion in gay marriage is interesting. I think most people use religion as a crutch in explaining their opposition to gay marriage. It's a helluva lot easier saying it's against your religion than to contemplate social mores, gender roles, and whether you should take your daughter to the library.
As for religious conservatives -- well, there's an age-old debate about social conventions and their usefulness that I won't go in to, other than to say most of those who are devout tend to argue there are true and eternal "godly" conventions that are in constant battle with "faddish" conventions of the day. But given that these "eternal" religious conventions change from generation to generation, what's more likely is that these folks simply are defending their slavish devotion arbitrary and antiquated mores with the rhetoric of eternity. I've always thought true belief would welcome fluidity in understanding and habit. After all, any mortal's conception of "God" is about as representative to reality as my kids' drawing of a ghost is to an actual ghost. But most conservative belief seems to be nothing more than "fossilized philosophy," as Simon Blackburn put it, "a philosophy with the questioning spirit suppressed."
What the h*ll's going on, you ask? It's a group of 700 Club Christians praying to God to restore the economy. Over a golden calf. Seriously.
So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Simple. Pat Robertson and the other televangelicals and mega-church leaders have risen to political prominence on the issues of abortion and gay marriage -- really, issues not at all central to the gospel. In short, they've used these issues to attack groups with little political or economic power -- gays and impoverished women -- while...well, I think the picture explains where the interests of many church leaders lie.
Now I don't mean this to be attack on my neighbors or friends who are conservative Christians. I do understand they feel that homosexuality is a sin, and against what God instructs. Personally, I feel they're misguided -- and no doubt they feel the same about me -- but I'm not going to deny them their beliefs. (Believe me, I'd consider disowning my son if he announced he was going to marry a Yankee fan.)
Too often it seems that those who brandish the issue are looking for a way to raise funds, stir up the electorate against their own economic and political best interests, and to use religion to advance their own political ambition. But the issue isn't about religion, it's about the state, and whether we use the power of government to define how citizens operate their personal lives.
This is a pretty funny story: apparently Bill Donohue of the paleo-conservative Catholic League sifted through all 120 blogs credentialed for the Democratic National Convention, looking for offensive material.
Besides displaying a middle-finger waving child on the main page, Bitch posted on some balloon Jesuses she didn't like. Towleroad offended Donohue by unabashedly flaunting its "homosexual tendencies" and criticizing the Pope's choice in cape-wear.
The question here is, how in the world did Left in the West pass muster with the Catholic League? I mean, I'm an advocateof gay marriage and accused the conservative movement of being unhealthily obsessed with gay sex. I've also poked fun at folks who believe in creationism and applauded a California court for ruling denying students of religious schools credit for classes that substitute religion for academic rigor.
I mean, what does a blog have to do to get on Donohue's sh*t list?
A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
Sounds about right to me. I've always maintained that if you inject religion into, say, science, you're missing the entire point of science. Teaching evolution to students isn't about indoctrinating people into an absurd sort of secular "church," it's an exercise of applying scientific principles to observing the natural world.
The Christian extremist group, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, whose goal appears to be to merge their particular brand of Evangelical Christianity with the state, is appealing the case, claiming that the ruling legitimizes the UC system's attempt to "secularize private religious schools." Pshaw. Religious schools are free to teach whatever they want; but they shouldn't be free from the consequences of their actions. If any school fails to educate students properly, that education shouldn't be recognized by accredited institutions.
Interestingly, the court case touched on a humanities class that was rejected by the UC university system:
For example, in Friday's ruling, Justice Otero upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.
Again, seems clear cut to me. Assuming any text is "unerring" in the practice of history is a big no-no. The purpose of history is to evoke different narratives from the past by scrupulous and unbiased research into historical records. To ignore all other interpretations or records in favor of a single text supporting a preconceived bias - well, that's anathema to the discipline.
It's worth repeating that none of this has anything to do with restricting anybody's First Amendment rights. Private schools are free to teach courses stuffed with factually inaccurate material as a form of religious indoctrination -- but they're not free to receive equal academic accreditation for those courses.
Some say Republicans are opposed to dealing with-or even acknowledging-global warming impacts because they fear the associated costs. Unfortunately, fear gets us nowhere fast. What about the costs of not dealing with the problem-such as runaway firefighting budgets and lost crops? Don't those costs accrue to Montanans whether or not they accept the science of global warming? And how can Republicans fail to notice that new coal-fired power plants are on the rocks nationwide-not because of environmentalists or Democrats, but because financial institutions have decided that new coal plants are a losing proposition, owing to their greenhouse gas emissions and a future federal carbon tax? Contrary to Montana's Republican legislators, financial institutions are heading off foreseeable costs by simply refusing to make loans to polluting plants.
[snip]
Denial is not a river in Egypt-it is, apparently, a Republican state of mind in regard to global warming. But since recent statewide polls show 62 percent of Montanans are concerned about global warming impacts, perhaps there's something we can do. This summer, when you can't go into the forest because it's closed, when you can't go fishing because the rivers are dried up, when smoke fills the air and turns the sun to a red ball in the sky, remember it was the Republicans who turned aside opportunities to deal with global warming. Then, come November, you can thank them for their foresight by voting for someone else, thus bringing the "costs" Republicans profess to be concerned about home to roost, right where they belong.
Meanwhile, their party's presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, is off to Europe to discuss national security issues with heads of state there. Included in this topic is climate change. That's right, climate change is a security issue for this country, too.
And it's not only a security issue, but a spiritual issue, too. While the Catholic church has gotten plenty of ink on its decision to add deliberate destruction of the environment to its mortal sins, overlooked was the Southern Baptist Church's recent entreaty to Christians to "become more active in preventing global climate change." (So I guess when our Republican legislators open up today's Gazette and read Cal Thomas' editorial blaming us for Elliot Spitzer's illegal infidelities, they should add their callous disregard for climate change to the causes of societal moral degradation.)
Illogical, uneconomical, short-sighted, weak on security, and morally odious. I mean, does it get any worse?
Over at 4&20 blackbirds back in December, Rebecca wrote about a Broadus' pharmacist's decision not to dispense oral contraception because of religious preferences. A great debate ensued, and it seemed that those registering complaints with the Montana Board of Pharmacy had a good case. Gazette commenter "Liberty Girl":
First of all - John Lane does not own the pharmacy. He is an employee and the only pharmacist for miles. (And suggesting that the pharmacy owner fire him or hire additional staff ignores the reality of provider-shortages in our rural communities) Aside from that fact, the reality is that people across Montana should be concerned that a state-licensed pharmacist can deny services based on his personal beliefs. Pharmacists are critical to the delivery of healthcare in our rural state. Not having any sort of guidance or standards for that licensure means that patients, who have legal prescriptions, can be denied care because the pharmacist disagrees based on his personal religious beliefs. John Lane took an oath to be a pharmacist, not a priest. If he can no longer fulfill the obligations of his chosen profession - for all of his clients - then he should consider a new line of work.
Yesterday, however, Planned Parenthood seemed to have come up with a good compromise: allowing pharmacies to have non-pharmacists dispense pre-packaged contraceptives:
''Customers' access to services in-store, without discrimination or delay, is paramount,'' [Planned Parenthood spokesperson] Stacey Anderson said. ''In Montana, this accommodation may be achieved through a combination of rule-making and/or statute that expressly protects patients' ability to access care and, in the case of rural Montana where pharmacists are limited, allows non-pharmacists to dispense prepackaged birth control.''
Ron Klein, executive director of the Montana Board of Pharmacy, said allowing people who aren't pharmacists to give out birth control would first require action by the state Legislature.
There are two issues here. One, is that it's not advisable to legislate pharmacists to carry certain kinds of stock. That's unreasonable: what if they can't move the product? On the other hand, as Anderson said in the Helena IR piece, like hospitals and other health-care providers, "pharmacists should be regulated to not only protect patients, but also to guarantee nondiscriminatory practices and access..."
Planned Parenthood's suggestion seems eminently reasonable. The pharmacist can adhere to his religious beliefs and not personally dispense the product, yet the patient can still receive her prescription medicine.
Something like this may not be much of an issue in an urban area, where there are plenty of pharmacies to choose from, but in Montana a personal choice to deny women certain kinds of health care could potentially be a big problem.
So...now all that needs to happen is to get a bill throught the state legislature allowing non-pharmacists to be able to dispense contraceptives to patients with prescriptions...
Mitt Romney had his "JFK moment" in the presidential campaign yesterday with his speech, "Faith in America ," which was an effort to make himself palatable to the Evangelical voters who make up a substantial portion of the Republican base. Other than Hugh Hewitt - who's already a groveling Romney sycophant - the speech didn't seem to sway many, from Evangelicals to liberals.
First, there was dissatisfaction at Romney's insistence that religion is critical to freedom, which, naturally implied agnostics, pagans, atheists, and the like apparently can't handle freedom or contribute to the national dialog. This point of view was, ironically, best expressed by Peggy Noonan:
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.
"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."
[snip]
"I would be very willing and able and supportive" to changes to the policy "to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity - whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual - that in my upbringing is not right," Pace said.
Pace also said that "sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin."
That's right folks. You all foolishly thought that God didn't play directly in American politics or the heated issues of today. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have it from a good source that:
This nation was "one nation, under God" until the ACLU and its lawyers kicked God out of our country. Without God, we are not under his divine providence and are subject to the evil of the world that manifests itself in terrorist attacks. The [9/11] victims' families can thank the ACLU for that.
I always thought that God was supposed to be all powerful or something. Imagine my surprise that he takes his marching orders from a few fine lawyers at the ACLU. If anything, the power to push around the alpha and the omega makes me more interested in joining the ACLU, so that I may become an overlord as well.
Jokes aside, this letter to the editor made me laugh. The ACLU did not push God out of our country, nor did the mint cause God to come into out country when that phrase was punched on to our money. Rest easy, readers.
So...there's a relatively interesting interview on Salon about the state of Muslim science, in which it's revealed that the Islamic scientific mind is still rooted in Medieval times and the Middle East is falling dangerously behind in science, which is threatening the region's ability to keep competitive economically. No surprises there, eh?
The really weird part was the reaction from rightie Ace who, leading with a hyperbolic "Shocking Article on the State of Islamic Science at Salon" for a title, proceeds to wade in and fault the interviewer for, well...asking questions that Ace interprets as arguing "on behalf of creationism -- Creationism, that most hated of all beliefs, to liberals - so long as the creationism in question is of a suitably privileged foreign, non-western culture," implying that the interview is part of some politically-charged liberal plot to destroy America and replace it with inferior non-white, non-Western values.
Hm.
Well, for starters, considering the interview's subtitle is "Turkish-American physicist Taner Edis explains why science in Muslim lands remains stuck in the past - and why the Golden Age of Mesopotamia wasn't so golden after all," even casual inspection shows that the article is, in fact, disparaging of Islamic science.
"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.
Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."
Sali's press spokesman, Wayne Hoffman, confirmed Sali really did say what he did: "I'd take it for what it says, nothing more."
I'd make a snark and suggest it's Bill Sali the Founding Fathers didn't envision, except for the existence of the First Amendment, which seemed to be written in anticipation of the Salis of the world.
I am not really sure what to make of this new museum that integrates Genesis with modern science. I am a believer that some forms of Creationism need not be in conflict with the theory of evolution. However, the proprietor of this museum is seeking to "undo the damage" inflicted by Clarence Darrow at the Scopes Monkey trial, and that sounds a little off to me. Moreover, he seems to think that this museum will answer the questions that William Jennings Bryan was "not prepared for." Bryan was many things, but unprepared is not one of them. He was an incredibly smart, devout man who was outfoxed by a legal genius.
Regardless, I don't think that the monkey trial caused the damage to religion that it is chalked up to have caused. In reality, the intellectual greed of some religionists caused a natural reaction from scientists. This is like a regular old turf war. You don't have to abandon some intellectual pluralism in order to be faithful. Faith, not creation, is the province of religion. Put another way, God (raised Catholic...but I think the same holds true for most other Dieties) could probably not care less that Creationism is not taught in public schools. I think that he would care that people have decided faith isn't good enough any more.
Update -- In related news, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) has an op-ed in the NYT. trying to explain his view on evolution. He feels that raising his hand against evolution in the presidential primary debate was not explanation enough of the issue. I think he is right about that, and, while I disagree with a lot of his views, they are certainly worth a read.
