Liberal Tribalism Regarding the Pope?

First, a quick announcement that I'm hoping to pick up the pace on this blog a bit. I have ideas for another two or three blog posts and just need to dedicate some time to actually writing them!!!

For today, though, I just want to keep one that's short and quick about something that's been on my mind a bit. Once again, it involves the Pope. I guess it's been about two weeks since the Pope said the following:

If my good friend Dr. [Alberto] Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him. It’s normal. One cannot provoke. One cannot insult the faith of others. One cannot make fun of faith.

I saw a post on RawStory with Piers Morgan criticizing the Pope, accusing the Pope of endorsing violence against critics of religion. I agree with Morgan. Yet, the strangest thing happened in the comment section. RawStory is a liberal website, so the commenters are generally liberal. And what I saw was potential liberals both defending the Pope with comments along the lines of "That's not what he was saying!" and fun poked at Morgan with comments in the theme of "Is Morgan auditioning for a job at Fox News?"

One thing I noticed here recently is that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had said something similar the week before when he said, "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction."

Actually, unlike the Pope, he actually said killing is not an appropriate response, something the Pope failed to do. Yet, Donohue got skewered by liberals, as he should have. (I'll note, though, that Donohue said other things suggesting that those who were murdered at Charlie Hebdo kind of had it coming, which would seem to contradict his condemnation of killing in response to insult.) So what's going on here that the Pope gets defenders while Donohue gets skewered? I fear there is some tribalism here. Donohue is known to be a conservative, so he's not part of the liberal tribe and is fair game. There are many liberals who (falsely) believe that the Pope is liberal. So it would seem some liberals are willing to rally around him and protect him when he reveals his true colors. This concerns me.

Can We Please Search for the Root Cause? - Single Mother Edition

   The title of this post is based on the idea of root cause analysis that shows up in engineering and perhaps other professions as well.

Root cause analysis practice tries to solve problems by attempting to identify and correct the root causes of events, as opposed to simply addressing their symptoms. By focusing correction on root causes, problem recurrence can be prevented.

   It would seem this concept gets it's name from weeds. With weeds, if you only remove what can be seen at the surface and you don't remove the roots, the weed will grow back. The same concept generally holds true with other life situations — if you only try to fix the problems that can be seen at the surface and don't address what is causing the problem, the problem will keep coming back.

   Today, I wish to talk about single mothers. This is due to a conversation that I had recently with my mother. She has had it in her head (and so does my father) that women get pregnant so that they can get on welfare. First, before I even get into looking at the root causes, this is such bullshit! Additionally, it frightens and disappoints me a bit when I hear such crap from my parents because this is conservative rhetoric. It's not a far cry from the ideas of 47-49% of the country being "moochers", which is bullshit* I addressed in part back in December. I also addressed a bit of this bullshit about single mothers then as well. I'll quote what I said before, bolding the part about single mothers:

   Take some time to grab a calculator if you need, and let's do some math! Currently, federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Let's say you work 40 hours per week at that wage. In a year's time, you will make $7.25/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year which amounts to a whopping $15,080/year. Apparently, this is near the 2012 poverty guideline for a household of two, but... Damn. That's not a lot of money. And what if you were a single parent making that wage? You'd be living in poverty and you would qualify for that dole money. Similarly, if we talk about people who are getting by on unemployment, I have heard the average unemployment benefits are just under $300 per week. At a full year, that again is only about $15,000. Who's going to be chilling on a hammock making that?

Likewise, I find it equally as stupid to suggest that women intentionally get pregnant and/or keep their children that result merely so they can live the "high-life" on welfare since that "high-life" does not exist.

   Getting back to the main topic, my mother's "solution" to this single-mother problem seemed to be that single mothers should give their children up for adoption. This was a bit bothersome first in how the point was so casually announced by my mother. It was as though this should be an easy decision. Perhaps it's easy for a woman who herself never had to make such a choise. For some reason, I don't suspect it would have actually been that easy if she had been in such a situatation. Second, it doesn't address the root causes. My mother fails to ask questions like "Why do single women get pregnant?" As suggestd, she seems to think the answer to "Why do single mothers go on welfare?" is that they are lazy mooches who want free gifts. (She also fails to consider the impact on foster homes.) I was able, though, to get the conversation redirected to those root causes, which involves the obstacles that society has set up in women's paths. I'll be going over these obstacles in this list below:

1. Contraception and Sex Education — The very first obstacle is society's resistance to give women the tools they need to prevent pregnancy in the first place. This resistance primarily comes from the religious right. My wife, Amy, picked up a fundamentalist magazine from her place of employment that is somewhat refreshingly (though also frightening) blunt about why this resistance exists:

   With increased access to birth control, and the easy availability of abortion on demand, sexual activity has increased in the last few decades, as men and women alike have come to believe they can avoid the consequences of that activity.**

   If this doesn't make complete sense, I'll help clarify — Many denominations of Christianity disapprove of people having sex particularly outside of marriage and sometimes even within marriage if the couple is not having sex for purely reproductive purposes. When a single woman gets pregnant, that is proof that she was having sex. This allows whatever church to which she may belong to shun her***. But if a woman has access to contraception and proper sex education, then it is less likely she will end up pregnant and the church will not have the proof they need. So they oppose contraception and sex education.
   Having a society that opperates this way makes it more difficult for women to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
   
2. Abortion — Similar to #1, churches oppose abortion because it allows women to not suffer the "consequences" of church-unapproved sex. Also similar to #1, this makes it harder on women to end an unwanted pregnancy.
3. Low Wages — Already discussed above. It is bullshit to say that women get pregnant so that they can be on welfare. The reality is that welfare may seem like a better option because jobs don't pay worth shit. Not to mention who's going to look after the child while the mother is at work? So you have to subtract out child care costs. Let's please not make these stupid accusations until there are better incentives for people to work, shall we? If women had better incentives to work, you may find out that they will then want to work.
   

   So let's, as a society, work on these issues and give women better choices. You'll likely find that things will improve with such changes.

* I cannot help but do a bit of chest-thumping as well. I was addressing the minimum wage problem in this country before Obama brought it up in the State of the Union. Also, I want to take some extra time to say that I am pleased that attention is being payed to the issue. But let's not stop at $9. Also, let's try to start fixing our tip system for restaurants. Preferably, I think we should be like Europe where no such system exists.

** Tomorrow's World; "Sex: Is It Sin?"; Page 11. Edit: Oops! It would seem I forgot to include an issue number...it would be an issue published around the time of this posting, so near March 2013.

*** There are at least two purposes to shunning. One is to make the woman herself feel bad that she then feels the need to ask the church's fictional Jesus for forgiveness, which has to be done at that church. In other words, the shunning has the goal of keeping her in the church. The second purpose is to keep the other parishioners in church. The pregnant woman serves as an example of what will supposedly happen when one strays from the teachings of the church. Since being shunned is an undesirable outcome, people will keep coming to church to avoid such an outcome.

---

   I feel I must end by pointing out that in previous discussions with my mother, she claimed that more acceptance of single mothers is leading to more of such pregnancies. This, too, is bullshit. Pregnancy rates have been going down for quite some time. Why could that be? (Could it be the result of improved access to contraception and sex education?)

And now, a pro-Wiggins ad

   So, I saw a pro-Wiggins ad today, and it caused a WTF?!? reaction.

EVERY IOWAN DESERVES EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

   The issue? It's a picture of a white, heterosexual couple. Yeah...they are really in need of equal protection, aren't they? (sarcasm)

   I actually do get it, though. While their demographic isn't that which needs to worry about equal protection, the ad is aimed at undecideds and showing a picture of a group that is fighting for equal protection (in this case, homosexual couples) could ignite the inner bigot of such voters. Showing them a picture of people who belong to their group, however, could have a reverse-psychology effect. The picture speaks "White heterosexuals, like you, need protecting." The goal, then, is for those viewing the ad to agree to this hidden message.


   And just a quick tromp through the website...

The Iowa Supreme Court provides equal protection under the law.

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled government cannot discriminate against a person based on race, gender, how much money they make or their sexual orientation. Retaining justices on the Iowa Supreme Court helps protect Iowans from discrimination.

The only thing I would say differently is that we should retain justices on the Iowa Supreme Court that have upheld the idea of equal protection. That is what Wiggins did. Judges who don't should get the boot. As for the other three judges, I don't know anything about how they have handled such matters; about all I know is that they are relatively new to the court. I voted to retain them, though, as I have not heard any reason as for why I should not do so.

---

   I also have one more thing to add to my post on the anti-Wiggins site: It is with the idea that "if activist judges can redefine marriage, then all our freedoms and rights are at stake." I have a better idea where this is coming from thanks to the awesome political blogger Ed Brayton. He has a post on penumbral reasoning, which amounts to judges determining that certain rights are implied by the constitution, though not implicitly stated. (In the case of Ed's post, that would be the US Constitution specifically, but the same concept should be able to be applied to any state constitution.) When such conclusions go against conservative wishes, these conservatives tend to accuse the judges of "creating a right out of thin air." In this case, the right is for homosexual couples to get married. More to the point, if they can create rights out of thin air, can they likewise take rights away in the same manner? That is the threat the conservative scare people with. The reality, of course, is that these rights were not created out of thin air, so such fears are unfounded.

Bigots hiding their bigotry make the worst arguments

   First, a brief history...

   In April of 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on a case on the topic of gay marriage (Varnum v. Brien). This is the ruling that effectively (more on this in a bit) made gay marriage legal here in Iowa.

   The next point of interest involves the fact that Iowa votes to retain justices on our state Supreme Court (as well as other courts). In 2010, three of the justices that ruled on that case were up for this retention vote. All three were voted out. Big time. And the reason many people had for voting them out was over the ruling in that gay marriage case. (I myself voted out two of them...more because I thought they had served on the court long enough as I am a believer in term limits. I now regret that decision.)

   The reason basically amounts to their religious beliefs that gay marriage = evil. But of course, they can't exactly be honest about their reasons so they instead try to give non-religious arguments instead. As these non-religious arguments aren't their real arguments, they end up being quite flawed, as we are about to see.

   Now, to the present, there seems to be one judge up for retention that was involved in that ruling (I assume this because he is the only one I have seen attack ads against). This would be David Wiggins. And now I'd like to go over the non-religious arguments that are on the main attack website, since an ad for it showed up in one of the blogs I read.

Theologians Respond! ...Laughably.

   I've seen some theologians respond to Mourdock's comments about rape. They have been mostly laughable from my perspective. Let's take a look at some...

From CNN...

Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People,” said Mourdock’s remarks were off-base: “He’s invoking the will of God where it is not appropriate."

What does that mean...not appropriate? Better yet, when is it appropriate? This goes with many of the points I made in my post. It seems perfectly acceptable to "invoke the will of God" when good things happen or in regards to the survivors of a tragedy. But when bad things happen or in regards to those who died in the very same tragedy? Not appropriate!!! That is how I read this quote; it's not that Mourdock was wrong but rather that Mourdock violated the first rule of Fight Club (which is to not talk about Fight Club).

People “should have compassion for the person whose life is messed up by this and not make her an instrument for our idiosyncratic, theological commitment,” Kushner said.

Again, it still feels that this Rabbi is not disagreeing with Mourdock as much as thinks Mourdock needs to shut up.

“If you believe she has no right to terminate that pregnancy, you're free to believe that,” Kushner said. “But for you to write your preferences into law and compel another person to mess her life up because of what you believe, I think you're going too far.”

This is one of those quotes that really bothers me. Of course he's supposed to try to write this stuff into law! What is the purpose of laws, after all, if not to give or ban certain rights? I believe that no one has the right to own slaves. Should we not have this written into our laws? The real issue here is that this belief stems purely from Mourdock's religious beliefs. He has no good non-religious reasons for writing this into law, which, as a secular nation, is supposed to be par for the course.

"Once again, expressions of Christian faith that honor the rights of women to choose their own health care options and what happens to their bodies are not seen or heard," wrote the Rev. Barbara Kershner Daniel.

Yeah, and do you want to know why? Because the people who are honoring the rights of women are doing so not because their Christianity dictates it but because they are people who care about the rights of others. Get it? Mourdock's beliefs stem directly from his Christian beliefs. The beliefs of these other Christians do not. I will concede, however, that not all denominations of Christianity dictate the beliefs that Mourdock has.

Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he found Mourdock’s comments troubling from a Catholic perspective because “God does not want rape to happen.”

Hey, didn't we recently see someone else say we shouldn't be "invoking the will of God"...or something? Oh, but that's right! That comment was about doing it when it was "inappropriate." Yet, this goes to my point that it's fine to invoke this will when it has a positive feel to it.

“Someone getting pregnant through rape simply means biology continues to function,” Reese said. “That doesn’t mean God wills it.

I completely agree! But then you don't get to say that "God wills it" in regards to someone getting pregnant through consensual sex. What bothers me is how it's biology, except when it isn't. By which I mean it seems very convenient that it is biology only when it is inconvenient to be the "will of God." To be fair, I don't know if this particular person believes it to not be biology otherwise, but I do get such impressions from other people.

“If we look at the Scriptures, we see a God who weeps with those going through pain, who is compassionate for those who suffer and condemns those who do injustice,” Reese said.

I saw pretty much the same comment from another theologian on Raw Story (posted later below). Some of the reaction there amounted to, "Umm... have you read your Bible?" I would assume this person has. I grant that you can find parts in the Bible that sound much like this (probably without the weeping deity, though). There are a lot of parts that portray much the opposite, especially in the Old Testament. The New Testament is more mixed. In one passage, you may have a Jesus who seems to care about helping people. The next? A Jesus who threatens people with hell mobster style! (In other words, the threats are indirect. A mobster may threaten someone's family by saying, "That's a nice family you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to them!" Such indirectness has, unfortunately, made it easier for Christians to deny that such threats exist.)

Paul Root Wolpe, the director for the Center of Ethics at Emory University, said Mourdock’s comments were the equivalent “of saying you shouldn't pull people out of the rubble because God intended the earthquake to happen or we shouldn't try to cure disease because it's God who gave us the disease,” Wolpe said.

First, where, exactly, was Mourdock saying we shouldn't help rape victims? He was just saying that they have to keep any pregnancies that may result. Maybe (I doubt it, but maybe) he's all for providing them with some financial assistance while they go through the pregnancy and perhaps afterward as well if they decide to raise the child themselves? I see what he is trying to do with these analogies, but they don't fit. Second, notice that he isn't denying that his god intends earthquakes, disease, and (probably) rape.

[Mike Deeg, the pastor of Mourdock's church] said of what he has read about Mourdock’s remarks, they largely lined up with the church’s teachings on the sanctity of life and their belief that life begins at conception.

“I think rape is a horrible thing, and I think God would condemn rape as horrible,” Deeg said. “I think we’re made in the image of God regardless,” he added, “I don’t think the circumstances dictate whether God knows us and loves us, regardless of how our conception comes about.”

He agrees with Mourdock. Color me shocked! (not)

And just an extra, since it stuck out...

[John] South, the chaplain in Phoenix, said the 12-year-old girl he met years ago opted for an abortion and her father was ultimately convicted of rape. He said he grappled often with “why she was subjected to such horrendous pain and torture, mentally, physically and emotionally.”

“Did it shake my faith? No,” South said. “Did I ask God why? Of course.”

Did you get an answer?

So let's recap. What did our theologians/rabbis/pastors actually say in regards to Mourdock (paraphrasing)?

Rabbi Harold Kushner - "Don't talk about it!" Doesn't say Mourdock is wrong. Sure, doesn't say Mourdock is right, either, but he sure blew an opportunity if he does disagree.
Father Tom Reese - "God doesn't intend rape!" But Mourdock didn't say that about the rape. He said it about the pregnancy. People have inferred that means the rape must be intended as well. I disagree.
- "Pregnancy from rape is biological!" This one addresses what Mourdock actually said and shows clear disagreement. But what are his thoughts toward pregnancies that are from consensual sex? Are there inconsistencies?
Paul Root Wolpe - "We help people who are in crisis!" Mourdock never said we don't; doesn't address issue.
Pastor Mike Degg - "Yep, everything he said we teach in my church!" Proud pastor!

Out of all those quotes in that post, we found merely one paragraph that actually countered what Mourdock said. Everything else either agrees with Mourdock (Degg), dances around the question (Kushner, South), or answers the wrong questions (Reese's first quote, Wolpe).



From Christian Science Monitor (via Raw Story)...

What Mourdock said “is offensive,” says Richard Lints, a theologian of the Reformed tradition... “The clumsiness is [to] so align God with evil that God becomes a horrific figure. It’s contrary to anything you read in scripture, and it removes the human responsibility.”

This is the quote I referenced above that had an "Umm... have you read your Bible?" reaction. Of course he has, but I would guess he's aiming for an audience that hasn't...unless he has actually convinced himself that what he speaks of the Bible is true.

“The Calvinist would say God has permitted [bad] things to happen” because humans have free agency, says Gary Scott Smith, a Presbyterian minister and historian at Grove City College in Grove City, Pa. “But we should not attribute [evil things] to God, even though God can bring good things out of them.”

This is the more interesting one. It's on the verge of being contradictory, if not so. The issue is that the free will defense* is used to explain why bad things happen. But, to be consistent, it should be all-or-nothing. Either this god does get involved in things both good and bad or not at all. The way this is stated, I get the impression from the "God can bring good things out of them" remark that this god can be involved, but this involvement is one-sided. Now, this is a Presbyterian minister talking about Calvinist beliefs, so perhaps he is not agreeing with the free will defense. But then how is he justifying this point about how "we should not attribute [evil things] to God"?

Moreover, there is nothing here that is in disagreement with what Mourdock said. This appears to be addressing the rape. Again, Mourdock said the pregnancy, not the rape, was intended by his god. The pregnancy could be viewed by someone like Mourdock as a "good thing" brought out of the rape.

Here's one I like...

What’s more, some also worry that “if you start restricting the scope of providence, that’s a slippery slope to atheism,” says [Peter] Thuesen, a professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. “It calls into question whether there really is a God who controls all things.”

He appears to be saying that if you apply this god's care or intervention with a limited scope, this could lead to a lack of belief. I somewhat agree, mostly if people would actually sit down and think about their beliefs. But I find that a lot of people already do limit that scope, which was much the point to my first post on this Mourdock topic. Yet, they're not atheists.

This confuses me, though. Can someone explain?

Mourdock isn’t part of any obscure sect. He reportedly attends Christian Fellowship Church in Evansville, Ind. It’s a “fairly typical Evangelical megachurch,” not a hub of fringe theology, according to Larry Eskridge, associate director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College in Illinois. Insofar as Mourdock seeks to emphasize God’s sovereignty in all things, he belongs to a “vocal minority subculture” in the United States, Thuesen says.

So...he isn't part of any obscure sect...but...he belongs to a "vocal minority" all at the same time. Yes, yes, I see the "insofar" which is limiting the topic, but why doesn't the rest of this sect share his view? We have quotes from the pastor from the previous link in agreement with Mourdock, after all. Or do they share this view, but are just not vocal about it?

Summarizing this link, we once again have theologians who aren't clearly saying Mourdock is wrong. Or where they appear to be doing so, they are once again either misrepresenting their scripture or referring to the rape itself, which Mourdock never said was intended.

Which all goes to the point I was making in my earlier post that nothing Mourdock said was wrong theologically.

* For those who are unfamiliar, the idea is that this god does not intervene in human affairs because allowing us free will is preferred to stopping bad things from happening. But this means this god is supposed to stay out of causing good things to happen as well. I find it to be a problematic defense for Christianity largely because there are many stories that have their god intervening. Also, many Christians don't believe in it. If they did, then they wouldn't have believed that their god was responsible for the Denver Broncos winning football games with Tim Tebow as quarterback.

I love Chris Kluwe, and not just because I am a Vikings fan!

   I just learned Saturday that the punter for the Minnesota Vikings is fucking awesome!

   Background story: Brendon Ayanbadejo, linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. A Maryland state delegate, Emmett C. Burns Jr, wrote to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee."

   Kluwe wrote a very passionate response to Mr. Burns (who looks nothing like that Mr. Burns), including language that I might use (highlighted below)!

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

   Kluwe was also on the Ed Show Friday night:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Respect my Polish roots, yo!!!

(via Crommunist)

Apparently, Poland has an anti-clerical party, the Palikot Movement. Part of this movement is now Poland's first transsexual and gay MPs! According to the BBC report, the party "campaigned for the legalisation of abortion, gay marriage and marijuana." Kudos to Poland for this progressive push to the left.

OK, let's stop dancing around the issue!

   Presidential Republican primary candidate Herman Cain was on Piers Morgan and the topic of homosexuality came up. Much of the discussion in the below video focused around the idea of whether or not homosexuality is a choice.



   While I do like how Piers Morgan tried to make Cain look foolish for believing (or at least claiming that he believes) that homosexuality is a choice, I don't think that is where the discussion should be focused. (Also, I wish someone would inform Cain on recorded TV that the science does show that homosexuality is not a choice...so that we can see him decide to not change his opinion anyway. See the video below the line break for some of the science.) I think people should grant him the idea that it is a choice (because, again, he'll likely deny the science anyway) and then pound on him for his "biblical beliefs" pointing out that this is a secular nation and that we have a First Amendment that essentially says that while Cain has the right to disagree with that choice, he does not have the right to enforce his disagreement (by which I mean banning gay marriage) as a point of law.

   The whole "Is it a choice?" debate is just a smoke screen/decoy from the real issue. The real issue, as should be obvious, is that homosexuality is a violation of his religious indoctrination. (Likewise, I'm not interested in debates about whether or not those denominations are interpreting the Bible correctly. I don't care! The only fact that matters is that they are being taught those interpretations.) Frankly, these people know that discriminating against a group for religious reasons is not legal. So they come up with excuses like "It's unnatural," "It's a choice," "Homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters," etc. to give the impression that they have a secular argument against it, though, in reality, they do not. (That last one has fallen out of favor as it has become too obvious that it's a fabrication.) For example, if you get them to admit that it is not a choice, they'll likely come up with some new justification. Much like the mythical beast Hydra, when you cut off one head, it just finds a way to grow another back. So, you need to attack it at its immortal head (or, rather, it's base/root). In this case, go after the religious roots. (And ask him for the evidence that his religious beliefs were handed down by God...or whatever he believes.)

---

There is a difference...

    There is a difference between teaching what someone said and teaching that someone was correct in what they said. Newt Gingrich doesn't seem to know this difference (or he might just not care). Watch the video, then read my further comments.



    The first example Newt gives is that the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." He then asks if children should learn what the founding fathers meant. And my answer to that is "Of course!" But does that mean teaching them that the founding fathers were correct in that statement? No! And, actually, the founding fathers were wrong with that statement. Rights are not unalienable; this should be quite clear with the fact that the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights. Why would you need a bill of rights if rights are unalienable?

    The second example Newt gives is perhaps even more absurd then the first. Again, it's a case of failing to distinguish teaching that person X had religious beliefs, which is acceptable to teach, versus person X was correct in their religious beliefs, which is not acceptable to teach.

    And then the clown show came to town. The questioner originally pointed out that Newt had said he was against the State impossing religion. But what does Newt do? He demonstrates that he wants State impossing religion. Well, he wants children to be able to "approach God in any way [they] want to." For those who are unfamiliar with this, this is how many politicians attempt to weasel out of claims that they are impossing a religion, because they are not specifying which one. Even though when they say "god" they really mean "God" (as in the Christian diety), they can then say that they were actually using that former blanket term. Though, implying that children should even be "approaching" any god should be enough. What if you don't believe in their imaginary friend?

    Continuing the clown show, Newt states that there is "an enormous difference between a culture which believes it is purly secular and a culture that believes it is somehow empowered by our creator." He has a point. There is an enormous difference between the likes of Norway or Japan (cultures that are nearly "purly" secular) and Pakistahn, Iran, Saudia Arabia (cultures that they are empowered by their creator)! Oh, was I not supposed to point that out???

    Otherwise, Cenk says just about everything else needed to be said on this.

Atheists dismissing Rick Perry/Christianity

About a week ago, Rick Perry had a discussion with a boy evolution and the age of the earth. A couple of atheists have chipped in on posts in The Washington Post.

Richard Dawkins first addressed Rick Perry and the Republican party.

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Of course, he also had things to say about evolution:

Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.
...
...
The simplicity of Darwin’s idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.

Paula Kirby also addressed the issue. She strayed away from Rick Perry and focused more on evolution and it's impact to Christianity.

Evolution is a simple fact. We can choose to remain ignorant of it, we can stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to think about it, we can even rail against it and shout and scream that it is not allowed to be true. But facts are facts, and will not go away just because we don't like them. We don't get to vote for our preferred method of having come into existence as a species, any more than we can choose to have been delivered by stork rather than conceived and born in the usual way.

The primary role of the school is pretty straightforward: it is to educate. It is to give young people the opportunity to learn as much as possible about the world, on the basis of the very best knowledge we have. Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.
...
...
...Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

She also point out that, "...Many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution..." So, while evolution doesn't instantly get rid of Christianity, it creates a weakened form. The following is such an example:

...when Christians realize God created the world to be free to grow and change, they do not fear evolution as “rampant secularism” but celebrate it as evidence of the astonishing power of an infinite God.

I'd really like to hear what she has to say about Jesus. I feel I can speculate a few things, though: I suspect that she finds Jesus to still be the "Son of God," but that he was sent to serve as a moral teacher and an example for us humans. I also suspect she does not believe in a torturous hell (I had an encounter on YouTube yesterday where the theist was claiming hell fire is part of a purification process, and that people don't stay in hell forever), though likely still believes in a heaven. I also suspect that she would have been raised in a family or culture that takes a more literal view of the Bible. This is good news for the next generation as long as atheist stay vocal. If she teaches her children that Jesus was just a good moral teacher sent by God, then pressure from atheists can get them to look at those teachings. They will find that those teachings are nothing special. They may still go about believing in a god, but at least they wouldn't be "the end is nigh!" type of Christians. It would be progress.

Trophygate

I'm days behind on this (as always), but something just screamed "Foul!" about this story. This picture to the right is the new Cy-Hawk Trophy, which is the trophy fought for in the annual University of Iowa vs. Iowa State University football game. The CEO of Iowa Corn, the organization sponsoring the trophy, had the following to say (emphasis mine):

“This is literally a work of art representing the people and characteristics that are uniquely Iowan.” said Craig Floss, CEO for Iowa Corn. “Just as the trophy reads, we are honest, hard working, family and community orientated people. Iowa’s corn farmers are proud to bring this work of art to the new Iowa Corn Cy-Hawk Series football game and we look forward to sharing it with the people of Iowa.”

That whole bit about family just shouts influence from anti-gay individuals. I get the feeling that there was a political agenda behind this. Though it could just be that I have become paranoid after last year's elections where three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted out over the gay marriage debate. The good news is that people complained about the trophy having nothing to do with football and the trophy will be replaced!

Good education wins in 9th Circuit

(via pharyngula)

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a high school history teacher who was critical of creationist arguments in his class. The concern in this case was that the teacher may have been violating the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Here are some of the teachers remarks:

“Aristotle … argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense,” Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. “I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”

He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”

“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

That sounds reasonable to me, as this is a critique of the problems with creationist arguments and not a flat out rejection of creationism. In other words, if this teacher would have just said that creationism is nonsense without providing the reasons why it is nonsense, then it would be an issue.

Judge Raymond Fisher, who wrote for the court, said the following:

“But teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities,” he said. “This balance is hard to achieve, and we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions.”

Being critical of creationist logic should help foster those critical thinking skills, and that is why I support this teacher's actions.

Unfortunately, the coverage on TYT, a favorite liberal biased show of mine, was disappointing.



If you can't criticize bad ideas in the educational system, then we will keep falling further behind the rest of the modern world in education.

What the fuck, Stewart?

The Daily Show - Culture War Update - The Dividening of America - American Atheists vs. Ground Zero Cross

Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It is rare, but every now and then, Jon Stewart disappoints me. The surprise was when he said, "By the way, atheists, why do you give a shit?" It's one thing to hear that from the religious, because they usually say it to discourage atheists from speaking out against their mythology, but hearing it from people who are not only non-religious but likely atheists as well is quite frustrating. Imagine a extreme scenario, just to make a clear point--what if there was a group of people living in, say, 1930's Germany who found comfort in a cross that remained from a building that burned down, killing a bunch of Jews inside. The comfort, of course, was from the feeling that their god was giving them a sign assuring them that they need to purify their culture. Need I explain how they would go about doing that? Might that be something worth caring about for someone like Stewart?



Now, as I said, the example is extreme, and doesn't fully relate to this 9/11 cross situation. Stewart went on to tell atheists what to think about the cross. However, the issue is not what we think about the cross, it is what Christians think about the cross. Just like in the example above, it's not necessarily an issue what Jews think of a cross, it is what the Christian Germans think about it! Frankly, there could be some Christians out there who see it as a sign from their god that they need to promote vengeance against all Muslims. Do you doubt that? Do I need to remind people about the raucous over the "Ground Zero Mosque" last year???



And if this still fails to clear up the problem, take this quote from former President, George H. W. Bush: "...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Though the cross may bring comfort to people, as Stewart says, the problem is that it also sends a silent message that this is a Christian nation, and I don't mean that in the sense that Christians are a majority; I mean that in the sense that Christians have special rights in this country, and if you are not a Christian, you, as Bush said it, "should not be considered...citizens."



The problem becomes obvious in comments that were found on Fox New's Facebook page. It sounds like most of the offending comments have been removed, but some were captured by the writer of One Man's Blog, but All Facebook has condenced the comments down into one layout.

Here is the video that apparently sparked all of this anger. While Dave Silverman may have said some offensive--but true--comments, did Blair Scott really say anything that should have gotten such a reaction?