Yes, I’m stealing this idea from everyone who has done it before me, but mostly from The Whited Sepulchre.
Here’s how the contest works: use the comments to indicate how you’d caption this photo; as many entries as you like. I’ll pick a winner on Sunday. Winners get acknowledgment and respect, even if not deserved. I’ll do this every Monday.
Caption this photo:
(photo via ap)
On February 5, President Obama held the traditional (at least since the Great Depression) National Prayer Breakfast in DC to clarify issues about his take on the faith-based initiative, and to laud the benefits of faith. Despite the fact that President Obama created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships made up of both secular and religious components, and despite his suggestion that the separation of church and state is a good thing that needs to be perpetuated, the Prayer Breakfast set an unsurprising, although perhaps subtle, non-rational tone.
For instance,
He said even though a diverse group of faith leaders and lawmakers read different religious texts and follow different traditions, one law unites them all — “the Golden Rule” — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”1
Implying simultaneously that faith is acceptable as a source of guidance, but is not the foundation of morality, which brings into question the purpose of focusing on faith as a benefit rather than merely focusing on benefit. (In other words, why not laud, in general, those people who help others, rather than trying to establish that there’s something inherently good about faith itself?)
More disturbing, and fringing on an attack against non-believers, a guest speaker at the Prayer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated that “The extreme believers and aggressive nonbelievers come together in an unholy alliance.” Funny, I don’t recall, by the nature of my aggressive nonbelief joining up with suicide bombers and bible-thumping clinic bombers. Non-belief is non-belief. It’s the lack of something, whereas belief is the addition of something, and extreme belief is the extreme addition of something. How can one have an extreme absence of something? It’s like trying to multiply by zero.
But, am I even remotely satisfied that Obama has taken Bush’s outlandish and non-working faith-based extremism and molded it, through compromise, into something that somehow includes non-believers with an overall goal of improving the lives of others? No. I can’t say that I am satisfied at all. I think every moment that Obama takes to focus on faith itself as a benefit is a moment that he tramples upon his own assertion that there exists and should be maintained a separation of church and state. Obama even recognizes that not all faith-based actions are beneficial, and excludes the extremists and the self-righteous, but he still can’t bring himself to the logical conclusion that if instead of focusing on “faith” as a factor, we focused on actual benefit as a factor, we could accomplish the same goals without risking establishment and without isolating those who would bring benefit to others without unsupported belief in the supernatural. Is this just another political maneuver to keep the religious groups from rioting, or is this Obama continuing to show his religious favoritism?
Regardless, President Obama isolates religion from scriptural fact when he says that “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate…. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” He might actually be correct with regard to religion, but he’s certainly way off the mark with regard to God, depending on which god is the subject, and depending on one’s definition of “innocent.” Did Obama skip his bible lesson where the God of the Old Testament laid waste to millions of people, or does Obama consider them all to have been guilty in the eyes of the Lord, and thus not innocent? Either answer indicates that Obama is either fabricating a reality that doesn’t match what the good books say, or he truly believes that God’s word is the higher law. If the former, should we worry about his ability to read and comprehend? If the latter, is he not advocating the combination of church and state while alleging that he supports separation? Remember, he thinks having faith in such a deity is a good thing.
By the way, there will be an Unholy Alliance meeting at the Elk’s Lodge on Main Street this Sunday. Coffee, donuts, and pitchforks will be served.
Carnival of the Godless entry at The Greenbelt
I’ve just returned from a lovely tour of Ireland. The tour was informative, the people were friendly, and the scenery was bright and interesting, despite the drizzle and cloudiness.
I managed to snag one of the many Sunday newspapers, the Sunday Independent, and a front-page article caught my attention. Obviously while I was there, I was curious about the religiousness of the denizens. The Irish seem more practical, with a hint of harmless superstition, than many Americans. The American religious (“Real Americans”) seem obsessed with condemning everyone to hell. The working Irish seem more concerned with keeping themselves alive and having a decent pint. Of course, Irish history is full of religious turmoil (read up on Henry VIII and the eventual split of Ireland, which, up to recently, has been a very dark time for Ireland, indeed), but it doesn’t seem like the issue of religion pervades their everyday life.
The front-page article, though, hinted at the fact that there might be a religious-based element simmering beneath the politics.1 The article was about the HPV vaccine, and how Ireland had just recently implemented the HPV screening process for adult women. It seems that the Irish government was halting the vaccinations of girls (around the age of 12) because of funding issues. However, the proponents of government-backed vaccinations argued that the real reason was based on the false argument that having vaccinations leads to promiscuity — an argument echoed in the U.S. debate over the very same vaccinations. A prominent Irish politician noted that the antagonists were playing “sexual politics.”
Here’s an excerpt: (emphasis mine)
[A] memorandum, which was drafted in the Department of Health, also sets out various arguments against now going ahead with the vaccination programme by placing significant emphasis on the risk factors associated with the cause of cervical cancer.
It states: “The virus that leads to cervical cancer is transmitted by sexual activity. It is very rare that a girl or woman who has not been sexually active would contract cervical cancer from this virus. The risk factors for cervical cancer are: early onset of sexual activity; multiple sexual partners; and smoking. These risk factors are reduced by health promotion measures.”
The Sunday Independent has established that serious concern exists among several Fianna Fail TDs and senators at the highlighting of what one called “sexual politics” in the debate.
A Fianna Fail TD said: “The whole notion of so-called promiscuous women being linked, albeit subtly, to the withdrawal of the vaccination programme is worrying for many of us in the party — but not all, I should add.”
Another TD said: “There is a real risk here of actually stigmatising women with cervical cancer as some kind of ‘woman of loose morals’.”
James McDaid failed to vote with the Government on a Fine Gael motion critical of the Government’s decision to “abandon” the vaccination programme. Dr McDaid subsequently asked the Dail: “Is there anyone in this House who would not give the vaccine to their daughters today?“
In a related article, it’s argued that, in light of the Irish minister’s assertion that cervical cancer screening obviated the necessity for vaccination, it’s better to have both that and an effective form of prevention rather than just the treatment.2
The vaccine prevents the great majority of these cancers and pre-cancers. It also prevents treatment and treatment side effects. That any serious authority could suggest that early detection is better than prevention is simply absurd.
Well, I suppose we’re not all that unlike, Ireland and America. How many Irish families will be able to afford the 600 Euro (about $758) private HPV vaccinations, now that the health minister has absolved the national vaccination program?3
The Irish government, the health minister in particular, used the “cost” excuse as its primary reason for halting the vaccine, but today, a letter to the Independent performed a simple cost/benefit analysis,4 which I think should put any government in its place when it weighs the value of a dollar over that of a life. Here’s an abridged version:
The value put on a life by the National Roads Authority is about €2m….
It is estimated that the cervical cancer vaccine would save 70 to 80 lives a year… a benefit of €150m per annum for a cost of €10m per annum for the vaccine.
The plan is to give the vaccine to 10 to 12-year-olds, but as the average age of onset of cervical cancer is 47, it can be argued that we may have to wait, on average, some 36 years to see the benefits.
This means we have to discount that benefit using the Department of Finance discount rate of 4pc per annum. For example, a benefit of €104 promised for next year, is only worth €100 to us this year, and so on.
Doing this calculation over 36 years means we can only count about one quarter (0.24) of the eventual benefit of €150m. That leaves “only” €36m of benefit today.
Therefore, we would spend €10m every year and we would benefit by €36m every year. That is a benefit to cost ratio of 360pc, rather better than most of our public investments.
It’s necessary for a government to weigh the value of life — the government can’t save every life, and trying to spend the money to do so would end up likely killing more than it saves. However, if it’s purely economic, treat it as such. If it’s morality, on the other hand, based on a skewed, unsupported, and puritanical religious point of view, keep it out of the decision altogether. That goes for all governments, please.
Of all the progressive steps forward taken by this nation last night, there was one giant leap backwards taken by Californians. A majority of registered Californians have spit in the face of the thousands of same sex couples who have tearfully and joyfully gotten married in the last few months.1 These Californians have bought into lies, distortions, and scare tactics, such as “gay marriage will be taught in schools,” and “priests will have to perform gay marriages,” which we have thoroughly corrected, clarified, and debunked in our previous articles and their preceding discussions.23 These Californians have claimed they consider marriage “sacred,” completely disregarding the fact that many homosexuals consider it sacred as well.
But is there an underlying cause of their overwhelming willingness to accept, give enormous sums of money to, and vote for this bigoted proposition? Is there a reason they are not stating directly, one that goes beyond the obviously false talking points? In the CNN exit polls, we can see gradual increases towards the No camp going up the scale of higher education and down the scale of age, but overall, most of the answers given are relatively split down the middle, making them close enough to possibly make their relation to the issue coincidental, given the margin of error.4 But there was one question asked in which there was an unmistakably large divide between the Yes and No camps – the vote by religion. Roughly 65% of Protestants and Catholics voted yes, while about 35% voted no. But where the poll becomes telling, and where we suddenly see a much sharper divide, is among those who practice no religion. An overwhelming 91% of those who practice no religion voted no on Prop 8, with only 9% in support of it.5 I don’t think it’s any secret that, without the backing of dogma, a position in support of denying another person basic freedoms is nearly impossible to justify.
The real reason Californians are using to rationalize this condemnation of homosexuals is clear – they believe their God considers homosexuality an abomination, because it says so in the Bible. Of course, they could never say this outright during their campaign, as it would shed light on a clear violation of the separation of Church and State, but anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills knows that this is assuredly what they believe. This discrimination has been taught from pulpits for centuries. So, for this next portion, let’s turn to the Bible, the “Good Book.” And what better place to start than Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the most commonly cited Bible stories Christians use to demonstrate that heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. Gather round, children. It’s story time.
In Genesis 19, we hear the story of two angels who, in the form of human men, were sent by God to the home of Lot, a Sodomite. Lot invited the angels to stay the night, but before they went to sleep, the men of the city of Sodom gathered around the house and yelled, “We know you’ve got some juicy men in there, Lot! Bring them out here, because we want to rape them!” Lot, being the righteous and holy man that he was, told the men, “Please do not rape my guests. Here, I have two virgin daughters which you are welcome to. I’ll bring them out so you can rape them any way you please, but these men are off limits.” Apparently, this wasn’t good enough for the evil gay men, and they tried to break down the door. But just in the nick of time, the angels struck all the men blind. The next morning, the angels told Lot that God was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and that he needed to take his family, escape to a mountain, and never look back. Lot replied, “I don’t want to go live in a mountain. There’s a city nearby, Zoar, and since it’s very small, maybe God could pretty please not destroy this particular city?” The Lord okayed it, and Lot took his family and left. God then rained fire and brimstone on all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah because, as we all know, every single one of them was evil, every man, woman, baby, fetus, puppy and kitten. Lot’s wife got a bit curious and looked back, so God turned her into a pillar of salt. (Apparently, the “don’t look back” rule was not quite as negotiable as the “head to the mountain” rule.) So, Lot and his daughters arrived in Zoar, but apparently it wasn’t as nice as Lot hoped it would be, so Lot took his daughters up to a mountain (that’s right, a mountain) to live in a cave. One night, the daughters, the very same daughters who were earlier offered up as rape sacrifices by their own father, decided to get their father drunk and rape him. Each of them bore a son, and they lived happily ever after.6 The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a petition charging that Prop 8 is “invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.”7 San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne Miller Ravel8 also filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8.9 Finally, Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred is representing Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first same sex couple to be married in Los Angeles last summer, who are filing a lawsuit against the measure. Tyler and Olson were one of the original couples who filed the lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court decision last May which declared the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.10 It’s surely a long and difficult road ahead, but these groups are to be commended for their strength and determination.
In other news, several protesters were arrested last night, November 5th, as they demonstrated against the passage of Prop 8 in Hollywood. According to LAPD spokesman Officer Jason Lee, a citywide tactical alert was issued, requiring all available officers to respond to the protest. Lee said that protesters tried to cross a line of officers as they moved along Hollywood Boulevard and that, at one point, a demonstrator jumped onto a police car. However, Lee said that despite this and the arrests made, the protest was mostly peaceful.11
UPDATE 2:
According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.” The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!
UPDATE 3:
Yesterday, November 19th, the California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 to review three of the six lawsuits which have been brought forth challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. A hearing on the lawsuits may be held as early as March, and it has been suggested that the court intends to resolve all the legal issues surrounding this proposition in a single ruling, including the validity of existing same sex marriages.12
—
[Pro's Notes:
NPR's Alex Cohen interviewed UC Berkley law professor Jesse Choper regarding whether the 11,000 same sex couples who legally married in California will be in jeopardy of losing their marriages to nullification.
SFGate asks the same question (but indicates that there are about 16,000 couples).
This isn't a new thing for many California couples. In 2004, the California Supreme Court nullified marriages held in San Francisco. Watch this YouTube recap, and read the New York Times article that details how the court held that the 4,000 couples had no standing, and then ordered the removal of the marriage records from the books, and the nullification of the marriages.
Paul Hogarth, at Huffington Post, writes that the attempt to reject Prop 8 failed due to complacency and distraction, but that there's still hope of it being overturned with the help of younger voters in California's future. Organize now, and do it right.]
)
Ah, traditional family values. Don’t they just warm your heart?
Perhaps some of you will point out some of the more “straightforward” verses, like Leviticus 18:22, which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;&version=9 ) There’s really no mincing of words with that one. There’s also no mincing of words with some of the other verses in that same book, such as Leviticus 11: 10-12, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.” ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2011:%2010-12;&version=9 ) Curious that we don’t see any Christians picketing in front of Red Lobster. And how about Leviticus 19:19, in which we are instructed not to wear clothing with two different kinds of fibers? ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19;&version=8 ) How did the Christians survive the 70s without God destroying them?
For those of you who think your morality derives from the Bible, I encourage you to actually read the Bible. And not just the warm, fuzzy verses you hear on Sunday morning, but the horrible, hateful, vicious, contradictory, and downright ridiculous verses that are everywhere to be found. Today is a sad, sad day in California for moral progress and an even sadder day for the homosexual community. My heart goes out to those whose marriages are now ambiguous and undefined, and they will be in my thoughts as I continue to fight for equal rights for all.
UPDATE 1:
Three separate lawsuits have been filed, asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. ((http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_10912170 [<]
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a favorite phrase among many a Christian in today’s society. When Governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric in her now infamous interview that her gay friend “happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made,”1 the obvious implication is that she thinks being a homosexual is the equivalent of making a poor decision, “sinning,” if you will. And you know what? She has every right to feel that way. Many people would argue that she is wrong, but it is not illegal to hold that view. What should be illegal, however, is the attempt of anyone to use that belief as an excuse to give homosexuals less rights than heterosexuals. And whether or not it is a “choice” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Did Gov. Palin “choose” to be a fundamentalist Christian and a Republican? She might argue that she was born that way, or she might agree that it is a choice, but her rights remain the same regardless, simply because she is a human and an American. I am probably using Palin in my example, admittedly, because she is such an easy target, but Democrats fare no better in this issue. I am appalled that both the red and blue presidential and vice-presidential candidates are unable, or unwilling, to see the inherent dishonesty in claiming “tolerance” on the one hand and denying homosexuals basic human rights on the other. I am even further appalled that the tolerant and progressive step forward that has been taken in California is now threatened by the passage of Proposition 8.
One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.2 This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.
So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.
What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.
Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.
One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.
I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
UPDATE 1:
On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.6 The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”7 They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.
UPDATE 2:
This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA. You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here. In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising! As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage. Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!
UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)
According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.” The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!
—–
Related StOP articles:
Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”
Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III
