Sex-offender chiropractors

Can someone please explain to me why registered sex offenders can practice (with limitations) as chiropractors, but physicians cannot?

Reader Miss Lou sent me this interesting article, saying, "Apparently if you are a sex offender in Minnesota, the state law says you can't be a physician but you can be a chiropractor. He doesn't even have to tell his patients!"

The long and the short of the article is that a chiropractor who engaged in egregious sex offenses on the clock, while practicing his trade, went to prison for 2 years, had his license revoked for 6 years, but was granted his license again – with limitations – so that he may continue to practice as a chiropractor.

This month, more than six years after revoking Fredin's license for the felony convictions, the state Board of Chiropractic Examiners granted Fredin's request to get his license back. To protect Fredin's clients, the board said he cannot treat any female patients without someone else in the room. Fredin is working in Minneapolis, but he can't treat patients until regulators approve his new location.

Why do I care? Well, because it seems that the regulations for chiropractors regarding registered sex offenders is much more lax then that of physicians and other medical care providers.

Under state law, many professionals -- including dentists, psychologists and nurses -- can't be barred from practicing after a criminal conviction as long as they can show licensing boards they were rehabilitated.

I wish I had a complete list of those who can't be barred.

However, there are no second chances at the state Board of Medical Practice, which regulates 22,000 health-care providers, including physicians, midwives and acupuncturists. In 1995, the Legislature passed a law requiring the board to yank the medical license of anyone convicted of a felony-level sexual offense.

Personally, I think that the standards of practice for chiropractic ought to be the same as the standards for any other medical profession. While I would contend that chiropractic is medicine, the field of chiropractic certainly acts like and in many cases is treated as such. I also wonder if these standards are limited to Minnesota or if one can find lax sex-offender standards for "medical" professionals in other states. Ah, to do research…

Does Objectification Equal Sexism?

An interesting business was recently under discussion on Atheist Nexus and by our good friend The Nerd.  That business is a small coffee shop, the Java Divas.  Seriously, check out their site.  Attractive women selling coffee in skimpy, suggestive costumes.  The coffee even comes in large/medium/small cups identified by bra sizes.  Another interesting tidbit - the owner and operator/fellow scantily-clad server is also a woman.

So . . . thoughts?  Much conversation at the above-mentioned internet places has already revolved around the idea of objectification not being morally/socially good or bad in and of itself.  Clearly, I sometimes objectify Ziztur, and she sometimes objectifies me.  This clearly has no inherent sexism, for a large number of reasons.

The principle difference, pointed out several times already, is that the suggestively-clad women at Java Divas have nothing more than a financial relationship with the customers (presumably, at least in the vast majority of cases).  There is at least a possible element of the women in question being resigned, by their financial situation, to working that job under these conditions.

My question, not to sugar-coat it too much, but:  So the hell what?

I'm reminded of this incident (among others in other firefighting departments around the world) in which a woman or women came short of physical fitness requirements for the job the were doing or applying for.  This particular case dealt with a distance run, and I've seen other cases dealing primarily with the immense upper-body strength required to be a firefighter.  Basically, in a nutshell, by any reasonable standard, you have to be an utter hardass to be a firefighter.

Now, I'm certainly not going to say that gender bias and discrimination have never been a factor in firefighting; that would just be spectacularly ignorant.  However, it's obvious to most people that these physical fitness standards are for the safety of the firefighters themselves and the safety of the public that they serve, and are not inherently gender-biased.

My question is this:  How are the women at Java Divas, or any similar establishment, being objectified for their physical appearance any more than firefighters are being objectified for their physical strength?  For that matter, why does the criteria have to be physical?  If someone happens to have knowledge and/or experience of, for example, the insurance business, or of Occupational Therapy, and are hired for a job on that criteria, how is their employment not "objectifying" them on the basis of that knowledge?

So, what does it say about someone's attitude towards women, their attitude towards sex, or their attitude towards what they think is women's attitude towards sex (try saying that ten times fast . . .) when they basically claim that women aren't capable of choosing for themselves what to do with their potential physical attractiveness?  Do these folks really worry about whether, to use just one example, firefighters (who after all are in much more physical danger on the job than baristas) are being exploited for their body strength, or are they basically, in effect, thinking, "Ah, well, they're men; of course they can make a mature decision about their own employment."?

Need I even mention that whatever "objectification" of the Java Divas employees that's occurring pales in comparison to a stripper, porn star, or prostitute?  I think it's obvious that an almost puritan or religious restriction on what women can and can't do with their bodies is the more sexist attitude, not only because of it's anti-sex overtones, but also because of it's strong implication that those mentally weak wimminfolk just don't have the emotional maturity to deal with people looking at their bodies.

What do you guys think?

Faith Infiltration: World View Community church Pt.2

This is part 2 of our Faith Infiltration of World View Community Church. Pt. 1 can be found here, and you can access all other Faith Infiltrations by clicking the "Faith Infiltration" label at the bottom of this page.

Nearly every weekend, Flimsy and I visit a church. We find a (typically St. Louis local) church in our area, drag ourselves out of bed in the morning, and do what we call "Faith Infiltration". Then, we blog about our experiences, describing what the church is like from the perspective of nonbelievers. We make no apologies: we do not mock what we see or sugarcoat our experiences, but we also don't pretend that one can truly understand what the church is like from a single visit. To date, we've been to 35 religious events, ranging from tiny Christian denominations with only 9 people in the whole building during a service, churches with a thousand people, the Church of Scientology, a Franklin Graham concert tour, and everything in-between.

After the worship service at World View Community Church, we asked to be directed to the multi-purpose room to view the video that was going to be shown.

The multi-purpose room of this church was sort of like a mini-sanctuary. My guess is that it was 20 feet wide by 30 feet long, outfitted with comfy chairs and rows of tables. Congregants milled about in this room, chatting with one-another or laying out notebooks and bibles so that they could take notes. It felt rather cavernous, given the tall, steeply sloped ceiling and comparably small floor space. At the front of the room was a projector and a clear plexiglass lectern. After a quick introduction, someone dimmed the lights and the DVD began.

We found ourselves watching section 6 (entitled: Social Capital) of "Dr." Lance Wallnau's 7 Mountain Mandate.

Allow me to first explain why I put the "Dr." part of Wallnau's name in quotes. This is not like when some people do things like put a bishops title "Bishop" in quotes because said bishop is openly gay and the individual writing about the bishop wants to show that he believes gay bishops somehow don't count. If you put "Dr." in front of your name, unless it is clearly satire then people will rightly assume that you have earned a doctoral degree from a university. To put "Dr." in front of your name when you have not earned a doctoral degree from a university is giving yourself an unearned title. As an individual who actually has earned a doctoral degree from a university, I find this as repellent as an individual using the term "officer" in front of his name to gain access to spaces in which he otherwise would not be allowed. If you're pro-life, imaging a person performing abortions as a "doctor" while never earning a medical degree.

I scoured the internet for information as to where Lance Wallnau earned his doctoral degree. I wanted to know if it was in business, politics, theology, etc. I could find no information about the university he graduated from or the degrees he had been conferred. I tried googling generally, and then tried these specific phrases in quotes: "Lance Wallnau graduated", "Lance Wallnau earned", "Lance Wallnau holds" etc, to see if I could find a byline indicated where he had graduated from. I checked his website. I can find no evidence that Wallnau has earned a doctoral degree from a university. This does not mean that he does not have one, only that I cannot find any information at all on the subject. I will offer no speculation as to why this is – you can form your own opinion.

To be fair, we did not get to see all of the segments of the DVD that were shown – the congregation was on section 6, so we missed the first parts. I also won't pretend that the information in the DVD reflects the opinions of the congregants. The 7-mountain Mandate DVD is very obviously a recording of a live conference Wallnau gave at some point. He is situated on a stage, with a wireless microphone before an audience of nodding and notewriting individuals in business casual dress in what looks to be a conference center. Luckily for me, the visuals of the conference were not particularly necessary, and all of the audio from this is available for download, so I went ahead and downloaded Section 6: Social Capital to have as a reference while I wrote this, lest I forget anything that was said or report something inaccurately.

Wallnau opened section 6 by talking about the book Church Shift, and says:

"It's unfortunate – in a way – that Christians don't have a view of history that shows the interaction of intercession and prayer with the unfolding of world events. And Because we don't have an oracle or a viewpoint or any reliable source, we tend to keep on disassociating from the world and just go into 'panic praying' – something bad happens, we all intercede. We don't realize the Berlin wall came down because of intercession, the Soviet empire came down because of intercession, and that every piece of legitimate liberation of people and nations is a result of prayer. It's never the result of the benevolence of the devil at work. So at some level, the Kingdom has been advancing and advancing and advancing."

Well, I have yet to see any evidence for "the devil" and so I will agree with Wallnau that "the devil's" benevolence is not the cause of the liberation of people and nations. I have also yet to see any evidence that intercessory prayer does anything at all to accomplish the liberation of people and nations. I could just as easily say, "I don't have a reliable source, but people need to realize that every piece of legitimate liberation of people and nations is a result of the wonderful philosophy of secular humanism". If one wants to make a claim of this magnitude, one needs to have substantial, falsifiable evidence to back it up. This statement made by Wallnau is also a false dichotomy: He sets up his point like this:

P: Either nations are liberated by prayer, or they are liberated by the devil's benevolence

P: The devil is never benevolent

C: Therefore, nations are liberated by prayer.

I could write a whole blog post on this, and I might, but let's move on. The point of course is that all good stuff comes from Christianity, and that Wallnau's god is working his magic everywhere, starting from a little church somewhere in the desert and growing from the few to the billion. But there is a problem: Christianity is at war.

Wallnau went on ask what the impact of 1.3 billion Christians would be on the world if they ever unified on shared principals. He said that Christianity would be the "largest, most dangerous bound together movement in the earth. When you consider the fact that in the United States – in spite of the exaggerated anxieties of Christians – the homosexual core is not larger than 5 to 6 percent of the adult male population or the adult population in the United States. You'd think it's 15 or 20 percent and that's just because they occupy high places of influence because Satan is strategic on where he puts influence. The Church is not."

Wow. That's pretty bigoted. Imagine if Wallnau had said blacks were occupying high places of influence because Satan is strategic in where he puts influence during the time before the abolition of slavery, when pastors and church leaders argued that slavery was ordained by their god. I don't really see a difference. People who are gay want the same civil rights as everyone else, so instead of dismissing their cry for equal rights by claiming that their influence is Satanic, how about examining their "influence" on its merits without resorting to ad hominem? Moving on, Wallnau continues:

"There are spheres of influence that god has ordained for his glory that Satan has occupied, that god is about to retake. How many of you have been hearing about a transfer of wealth? … I think I know the reason. I have the key. If you want wealth – obscene, gobs of wealth, then what you do is you give god what he wants. … Henry Blackaby talks to 150 CEO's on a Friday …and wrote the book Experiencing God… teaches is central to the transfer of wealth… I do training with 1500 CEO's and I go to Blackaby... Here's what Blackaby says: you want to experience god? You wanna have that glory, that breakout break through dimension on a sustained and progressive level? God is always at work…"

He goes on to say (in a rather disjointed way that does not lend well to quoting directly) that god is at work and that one should have a loving relationship with god so that god may reveal to him what god is up to. God is at work in your neighborhood and everywhere else and so your job is to show up wherever god is at while simultaneously being intimate in worship with god, because it is through this intimacy that god gives people an "invitation" to join him in his work. This, he says, is how we can be confident that if we enter into "warfare" we will surely win. Another way to have success at "warfare" is to not fight every cause, but focus on the causes you feel god has showed you. If you have an intimate enough relationship with Wallnau's god, then his god will show up and help you get into the "strongholds" of Satan.

Okay, this post has gotten long enough. Tomorrow, I am going to blog about a particularly timely "stronghold" that Wallnau says god called him to get into. What I have here is more than enough for lengthy discussions.

Drug_Use_Take_Care.pdf

Fox news and just about everyone in the world is flipping out over this 16 page pamphlet paid for by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that reportedly offers "information on how to prepare drugs carefully and care for veins to avoid infection." They are flipping out, of course, because the perceive the pamphlet to be "heroin for dummies", describing it as "step-by- step instruction on how to inject a poison". Critics say it implies that there are "safer" ways to inject heroin and enables drug users to use more drugs.

As with all things, it is important not to listen to the local talking heads, to purge yourself of their opinions, and take a look at the pamphlet yourself with the most objective eyes possible. Unfortunately, New York has made that rather difficult, by removing the link to the online .PDF of the pamphlet. That's okay though, because I saved a copy, so you can download drug_use_take_care.pdf here.

The drug use take care pamphlet is titled "Take Charge Take Care" and is subtitled, "10 tips for safer use". Bloggers and reporters everywhere are specifically mentioning the "cartoony" images and simple language, as if to imply that this manual is a how to manual for young people or children. In reality, almost all community health pamphlets are structured in this way, so that they are understood by as many people as possible. Take, for example, the pamphlets on STD's you find inside the patient rooms during visits to the doctor.

The very first page of this pamphlet says, in large friendly letters that one can get help and support to stop using drugs at any time day or night, and lists a phone number. The second page has a list of the 10 steps for safer use:

1. Prevent overdose
   
2. Treat overdose
   
3. Don't share
   
4. Use new syringes
   
5. Prepare drugs carefully
   
6. Take care of your veins
   
7. Know your HIV status
   
8. Get tested and treated for hepatitis
   
9. Get help for depression
   
10. Ask for help to stop using
    

Now, perhaps it would have been prudent to order these slightly differently, so that the overall outline of the pamphlet was something more like, "okay dude. We really want you to stop using heroin because it is very bad for you and can kill you. Heroin use is never safe and never a good idea. But you clearly have an addiction and can't just stop right away. We really don't want you to spread hepatitis or HIV around or die, so for the love of humanity, would you please prevent an overdose, use new syringes, and stop using watered-down soda in an old cup you found to dilute your drugs, kay?"

The next page is nothing to scoff at – basically, it explains that you should not use drugs alone, you should know your tolerance levels, and not mix drugs. The page after that explains how to recognize and treat an overdose – something we all should know how to do. The page s after this details pt 4. Tip 5 is the tip people are up in arms about – it gives some somewhat specific directions on how to safely prepare drugs.

I'd like to state here that I have not, nor will ever try heroin, but I do know how to give injections, I have spent some time giving people body piercings, and I am quite familiar with all sorts of hospital and medical precautions, including surgical precautions. I learned how to install any plumbing fixture you can name using a book, taught myself how to do electrical work on houses using online diagrams, and can diagnose and fix problems with my car using deductive reasoning and a Haynes manual. If someone handed me a nice, complete get-high kit, some heroin, and this pamphlet, I wouldn't know how to prepare it, and this pamphlet does not tell me. It is clearly for experienced users. If I can't figure out how to shoot heroin using this pamphlet and my fancy medical degree and ability to fix houses and cars practically in my sleep, then how can this be construed as a "how-to" guide or "heroin for dummies"?

The next page gives information on how to take care of your veins. A lot of it is in slang language: "Only 'boot' once or twice in one shot" – what?

The other pages are all about knowing your HIV status, getting tested for diseases, getting help for depression, and getting help to stop using.

Though the media is portraying this pamphlet as teaching people how to use drugs, it doesn't do that. The bulk of the information presented is geared toward stopping, but it is written in a non judgmental manner. I know it feels like the right thing to do to be judgmental and tell people that doing drugs is bad and that they should stop, but the reality is that this matter of fact, non-biased approach opens the door for people to consider quitting – if you just preach at them that their drug habit is wrong and will kill them, they are likely to shut down.

So, is this a manual for heroin use? No. Could it have been worded differently? Probably. I think it is far more likely to save the life of a user than to get someone to start using, or to make someone believe that using is safe.

It is also worth noting that this pamphlet has been around since 2007. I have to wonder why people are only noticing it now.

Guess who!

Do not look this up. That's cheating. I've changed the phrasing just enough to retain the original meaning, but make it hard to look up.

Who is the author of this?

“Without personally affirming any particular Confession, we have rebuilt faith to its pre-requisites because we were certain that the people need and require it. We have thus engaged in the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with trifling theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

Last War on Xmas post

I am literally laughing out loud at this blog post by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis titled, "Nazis Started War Against Christmas" in which Gap (the company who *gasp* compared Christmas to the solstice, how dare they!) and anyone who does not specifically acknowledge Christmas during the month of December is compared to anti-semites and Nazis.

You're just going to have to read it:

While the left tries to perpetuate the myth that the Nazis were right wing Christians, nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler was steeped in the occult, and even introduced a calendar late in the war that replaced every single Christian holiday with a pagan alternative.

Really, nothing could be further from the truth?

The Nazi's were clearly Christians, who hated Jews because they believed the Jews murdered Jesus. They hated Jews because the Jews rejected Jesus. They believed Jesus was Aryan. This is unambiguously clear. Hitler's hatred of Jews was not new. He learned to hate Jews due to Catholic and Protestant preaching at the pulpit. I know it's fun to try to rewrite history to make your religion look as wonderful as possible, but denying that the holocaust was perpetuated by Christians is nearly as bad as denying the holocaust occurred at all.

In 200 years, when homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, the AFA will probably be insisting that "the left tries to perpetuate the myth that right wing Christians opposed gay rights".

Mr. Fischer. You are claiming historical "facts". Where are your citations? Why do you provide no evidence? I can provide evidence that Hitler was a Christian. It's not hard.  Here's more.   Here's some more.

Especially important in the Hitler/Christian controversy is the unreliability of Hitler's Table Talk, a source referenced by Christians to prove that Hitler was against Christianity, but the source is unreliable.

So what's up with this calendar?

Rosenberg, the guy who created the calendar, rejected parts of Christianity, and helped develop positive Christianity, the model of Christianity adopted by Nazi's. Positive Christianity rejected the Old Testament, insisted that Jesus was Aryan and non-Jewish, and had a goal of uniting Catholicism and Protestantism into one united Christian church.

It seems pretty clear to me that all of the sources of this calendar paint it in such a light as to ignore the positive Christianity aspects and play up the nationalistic, propagandic aspects.

When it came to Christmas, the Nazis urged Germans to celebrate the holy day (excuse me, "holiday") by using ornaments on their trees in the shape of swastikas and the Iron Cross, baking cookies using swastika-shaped cookie cutters, replacing St. Nicholas with an image of the Norse god Odin, and burning candles set on swastika-shaped holders.

You realize, Mr Fischer, that "holiday" is a contraction of Holy Day, right?

You didn't provide a source again for your cookie and ornament comment, but I can. Yes, they did have Swastika ornaments. They also seem to have a baby-Jesus shaped cookie:

The source I cited also refers to the Nazis as "atheist". So I have to wonder about the accuracy of the way the historical documents in this museum are presented. One of the women who set up the museum of See-How-Anti-Christian-Nazis-Were had this to say:

'Christmas was a provocation for the Nazis - after all, the baby Jesus was a Jewish child,' Judith Breuer told the German newspaper Spiegel. 'The most important celebration in the year didn't fit with their racist beliefs so they had to react, by trying to make it less Christian.'

Yes, but documents are extremely clear – the Nazis were Christian and believed Jesus was an Aryan, not a "Jewish child". This quote makes me think that this whole museum may be about as historically accurate as the Creation Museum.

Nazis also specifically perpetuated violent acts during Jewish holidays.

Believe it or not, Germans produced ornaments in the shape of bombs and hand grenades. And no, I am not making that up. Not much "Peace on Earth" in that, is there?

They, like many Christians, probably believed that one had to war for peace. They just had a funky way of expressing it. 

In something emblematic of the German church's craven capitulation to the Nazi regime, German churches put up little opposition to the Nazification of Christmas. Why? Says a student of the time, "[T]hey largely kept quiet, out of fear."

Or out of agreement. 

The Daily Mail story refers to "the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn (Christmas) into a pagan winter solstice celebration."

Can you say "Hello, Gap?" The Gap responded to pressure from the American Family Association about the absence of "Christmas" in their advertising by producing a commercial that does mention Christmas, but then adds "Go Solstice" in the next breath.

Really. The Gap is compared to atheist Nazis who tried to turn Christmas into a pagan solstice celebration. I don't even think I need to present a counter-argument, this can just stand on its own.

The Nazis hated Christmas for one simple reason: it celebrates the birth of a Jew.

The Nazis hated Jews because they killed Jesus. There really isn't evidence that they "hated Christmas", just evidence that they wanted to blend Christmas with nationalism. If anything, Christians should be angry that businesses are exploiting their holiday to make money.

By the way, this suggests a new tack in our discussion about Christmas. The left hates Christmas because it celebrates the birthday of the first Christian. But isn't there something faintly anti-Semitic about that?

No. First of all, the left does not hate Christmas. How many people on the left consider themselves Christian, anyway? There really aren't any good studies on religion vs left-wing and right-wing politics, so I cannot say.

Personally, I just feel as though you should not force people to acknowledge your holiday. If they do – okay. If they don't –okay. It should be our choice, right? But AFA insists that people do not have a choice. Wanting the choice is not "hating Christmas" and certainly is not anti-Semitic. If that were the case, then lobbying to force business to specifically acknowledge Christmas while simultaneously not forcing businesses to specifically acknowledge Hanukkah is anti-Semitic.

After all, Christians can hardly be accused of systemic racism when we believe the Savior of the world lived his life on earth as a Jew.

So? So maybe you're not racist with regard to Jesus. Maybe you still hate other Jews for killing Jesus. Maybe you hate black people, or Muslims. Believing that Jesus was a Jew is not an argument against Christians being racist. It is a red herring.

Even the left tries to protect the celebration of the Jewish holiday Hanukkah, which conveniently for Jewish children aced out of the whole Christmas gift thing falls near Christmas most every year. In fact, some schools with left-leaning principals will allow the display of menorahs in school buildings while forbidding nativity scenes.

Citation needed, dude. Here, I did it for you. This has nothing to do with principals as far as I can tell – the whole menorah but not nativity scene is a New York City Public Education policy, which allows religious symbols during holidays so long as they do not depict a specific deity. So go put up a cross.

But wait a minute. All the key players in the nativity scene - father, mother, child, shepherds - were Jewish. That means we can celebrate two Jewish holidays this time of year instead of just one!

This is just underhanded. Mr. Fischer knows that Jewish people do not celebrate the birth of Christ as a Jewish holiday.

I say we start reminding folks that December 25 marks the birth of the greatest Jew who ever lived, and that America is too great a country to allow anti-Semitism to rob us of the recognition of this world-shaping figure given to the world by the Jewish people.

People who wish that the holidays be more inclusive to other religions are not anti-Semitic. Ad hominem much?

What other Jew has had the impact on the world that this figure has had? His influence is pervasive even 2,000 years after his death. One third of the world's population calls itself by his name. If there ever was a Jewish man who deserved his own holiday, Jesus is the one.

So from now on, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. When people question whether we ought to celebrate Christmas, my response will be to express wonder that they nurse such anti-Semitic feelings in their hearts. Why, I will add, with our first post-racial president and all, I thought we were supposed to be way beyond all that racist bigotry.

And I will conclude, "I celebrate Christmas because I'm no anti-Semitic racist bigot. How about you?"

Good for you! Go on celebrating Christmas. But don't force everyone else to do so as well and don't call people anti-Semitic racist bigots for not celebrating Christmas. That's really insulting to Jewish people. I guess people who celebrate Kwanzaa should say that they do so because they're no anti-black racist bigot. I guess people should say they celebrate Hannukah because they're no anti-Semitic racist bigot. I guess people should celebrate nothing at all because they aren't bigoted toward people who aren't religious. I guess people should celebrate Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha because they are no anti-Muslim racist bigot.

Okay, I'm done now.

Pinning down this MLK guy.

So, Martin Luther King Jr.  The name alone conjures up images of grand ideas, pivotal history, and notions of all that is best in the United States of America.  When Christians want an example of a fellow follower of Jesus that fought bravely for noble causes, it's just a matter of time until you hear MLK's name.  In this respect, he's squarely in the category of the legendary "founding fathers" of the U.S.A. as a valuable name to claim for "our side."  It seems like everyone wants those rare, awe-inspiring names that other people respect to share their own opinions on big, important questions, as if their worldview is somehow vindicated by the agreement of a long-dead historical figure.

Can we atheists claim MLK as one of our own?  We can't claim Thomas Paine; he was a deist.  Similarly, can't claim Thomas Jefferson.  Susan B. Anthony is debatable.  We could make a case for Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, but, c'mon, they're scientists; of course they're awesome.

The answer, obviously, is no, no we can't.  MLK was clearly a theist; he was a reverend, for Pete's sake.  He claimed Christianity.  That's not necessarily the end of the question, though.

In 1949, MLK wrote a paper titled, "What Experiences of Christians Living is the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection."  Quite the explanatory title, eh?  Many believers would be shocked at the statements in it:

Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable*, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement . . . How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being? . . . We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. . . . Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.

(Regarding the virgin birth) First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "young woman." How then did this doctrine arise? A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin's First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.

The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting."

In each case, MLK ultimately concludes that there is a significant underlying spiritual reality behind each of these seemingly irrational doctrines, so we certainly have no basis for insisting that he was not a Christian . . .

Unless, of course, we were fundamentalist Christians.  I'd wager that a good number of Christians of a more traditional, literalistic bent would not hesitate to declare that if you don't believe in Jesus' literal virgin birth, divinity, and resurrection, you cannot be a Christian.  I strongly disagree; I think we could even potentially make an argument for the existence of an atheist Christian who does not believe in a literal god but who advocates and upholds the teachings of Jesus in every other way, to the exclusion of all others.  It's strange, I think that it's pretty irrational, I'd argue about one of those conclusions for a good long time, but I don't think that the concepts of 'atheist; and 'Christian' must necessarily be mutually exclusive in the way that 'atheist' and, for example, 'theist' are.

Again, if we are going to include the acceptance of specific supernatural assertions as being necessary to consider oneself a Christian, we wouldn't have to go far to exclude MLK.

Another paper, again from 1949, describes what MLK considers to be "fundamentalism," of which he does not speak highly, to say the least.  Particular attention should be paid to the last paragraph:

When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God. Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man {was} lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death. The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule by many. But this does not shake his faith--rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil. The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn't influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God.

Others doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he was {is} willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, MLK claimed Christianity, so he's a Christian.  Still, how many Christians would read that last paragraph and conclude that the author could not possibly be a "believer"?

Moreover, MLK obviously had a thing for ethics and social justice, for which he is rightly known.  In all his writings, he basically never appeals to the Bible or the direct will of God for his moral position.  In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," he explains his opinion of the morality of the "Natural Law," but then he immediately defines the Natural Law in explicitly humanistic terms:

An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

He goes on to give and explain examples of specific injustices wrought by segregation.  True, the "Natural Law" is traditionally understood as a theistic morality, but MLK defines it completely differently.

So MLK was indeed a Christian.  He claimed Christianity.  We can't claim him for the atheist camp.  We can, however, claim him as a liberal.  We can certainly claim him, perhaps most importantly, as a skeptic and a humanist.

Strawman for climategate?

I've got one (1) week of my internship left and then I graduate! This means that I will have more time to blog. It also means I will be looking for some type of gainful employment. That aside…

The other day I was listening to the local Christian radio station. Someone on air was talking about "Climategate", the incident in which climate scientists' emails were hacks and posted on the internet, revealing that scientists use words like "trick" and "hide" and that those words can be usurped as the smoking gun that global warming is a myth.

On this program, the radio personality (unfortunately, I forget who) actually made the argument that there was no way humans could fuck up the earth because god made the earth for us to use, and we can't expect to be such a powerful force as to muck up god's great planet. Therefore, global warming is a myth invented by power-hungry scientists who are trying to elevate themselves to godly levels because they crave power and the ability to control others.

…

Yes, they actually made that argument. Here I was thinking that said argument was nothing more than an absurd strawman invented by critical thinkers to mock believers. Apparently I was giving some people too much credit.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 6

Wrapping up the Manhattan Declaration, with their arguments (a term I use very loosely indeed, here) and examples of the religious freedom of Christians being infringed upon:

"We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses . . ."


Easy answer - if you don't want to do work of a given type (because of moral or religious objection or any other reason) then don't take the job.  I'm always entertained by how they only ever think of Christian doctors whose job involves women who might get abortions or need contraception, or Christian organizations who might not get to discriminate against homosexual couples, or some such bit of Christian fundamentalist dogma.  There are a million examples of other beliefs that are just grossly violated if somebody, for some idiotic reason, takes a job that involves things that they believe to be immoral.  What about a vegan who takes a job at a meat-packing plant?  What about a pacifist who joins the military?  There are even some kookier fringe believers who believe that blood transfusions are a sin; should hospitals and other health care businesses and organizations be forced to hire these folks and permit them to refuse to administer such procedures?


"We see it in the use of antidiscrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business."

This is an old question - how much discrimination should the government forcibly forbid?  Well, I would just ask the supporters and signers of the MD:  Would you be okay with businesses or organizations  refusing to serve Christians?  Do such establishments have a right to be discriminatory against Christians, in the same way that you're claiming a right to discriminate against others?


"After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching."

Yes, the Catholic Church ceased it charitable activities because they were told that they couldn't discriminate against gay couples anymore.  The Church made their priorities crystal clear - with a choice between continuing to do material good in the world and maintaining their discriminatory doctrine while ceasing to do that good, they chose the latter.  Again, to the supporters of the MD, what would you think of an organization that believed that Christian homes are so intrinsically hostile to children that they universally refuse to place orphaned children with Christian couples?  What would you think of them if the government told them that they had to stop their discriminatory policy, or they would be risking their tax-exempt status, and they responded by stopping their charity work altogether?

"In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions."

This bit doesn't actually reference the incident that it's referring to (no surprise there - you may have notices that the MD doesn't reference any of it's claims).  If it's referring to this semi-famous incident, though, they're being dishonest again.  This was not a Methodist organization being forced to carry out a wedding ceremony, it was a tiny pavilion on a beach that had been open to the public but that they now decided was off-limits to gay couples blessing civil unions.  In the words of a lawyer representing a lesbian couple who was denied by the group, the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man.  The Methodist group was also not "stripped of its tax exempt status," it was stripped of it's tax exemption only for the small pavilion area that they barred gay couples from.

"In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality."

Citation needed.  I've heard of a few religious people being basically scolded for disruptive behavior, nothing more.  If there is more, I want to look into it.  You'll be disturbed to know where they're going with this, though:

"New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here."

Um, hate-crime legislation only addresses motivations of violent crime.  I am alarmed and appalled that the MD is concerned over a law's effect on their ability to "preach" their religious beliefs when that law only addresses violent attack.

They go on to use really, really scary language about how the destruction of religious freedom will allow society to devolve into complete tyranny.  Again, entertaining, seeing as how this entire document's central idea is that the government should enforce their specific religion.

"In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.""

They don't stop hammering this.  They would have a point; I strongly disagree with any restriction on the religious speech of anybody.  Except for one thing:  Nobody is telling anybody to stop preaching!  It's a lie (repeated over and over again in the MD) that any Christians are being prevented from preaching in America.

"There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail."

The hilarious part is this:  By King's argument, we should be discussing whether gay men and women, along with their progressive, ethical friends, family, and fellow citizens, should be contemplating civil disobedience in favor of gay rights.  The MD, of course, seems to have concluded that it is Christians who should be contemplating civil disobedience because they might not be permitted to uphold their doctrine (even though their fundamentalist doctrine is unambiguously discriminatory).

In any event, I agree wholeheartedly that Letter from a Birmingham Jail is an extraordinarily eloquent reasoning for principled defiance of unjust authority, except for one thing - King clearly does not base his ethical reasoning on Biblical theology - his reasoning is entirely humanistic.  Similarly, he does indeed quote several thinkers from the Christian church, yet all such statements are secular and humanistic in nature, such as, "I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."  He mentions St. Thomas Aquinas and the 'natural law,' but he immediately goes on to define what he considers the 'natural law' to be in completely secular, humanistic terms.

I have more to say about Martin Luther King Jr., but I think he deserves his own blog post.  The capstone to the Manhattan Declaration:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

We don't want to make you participate in abortions, "embryo-destructive" research, or assisted suicide.  However, we also won't let you force these religious beliefs of yours on others.  You are similarly welcome to refuse to bless sexual partnerships that you consider to be immoral, but you may not enshrine your bigotry against such partnerships into law, and we will also exercise our right to point out how primitive and downright childish are your doctrines of sexual morality.  We fully render your rights and freedoms to believe these things to you, but under no circumstances will we surrender the rights and freedoms of others that you would take away.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 5

The last little bit about the Manhattan Declaration; their last point is about religious liberty.  This might seem strange to some.  To their credit, many religious groups and secular groups alike have roundly criticized the UN's anti-blasphemy regulations.  Frankly, from the M. Document so far, I would have bet any amount of money that such an example of an actual violation of freedom of religion is not what the MD has in mind.  So what on earth is the MD complaining about when it insists that Christians will defend their rights of religious freedom?

"Religious liberty is not a novel idea or recent development, but is grounded in the character of God Himself . . ."

The character of . . . which God, again?  Because, of course, the Bible is just oozing with religious freedom.  Yeah, I'm a little sarcastic, but . . . DAMN.  Do we really need to go over all the times in the Bible that God killed or commanded the deaths of people for not worshiping him?

The MD goes on to declare that "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I agree, of course, but, again, I think that it's clear that they betray the noble, ethical principles that they claim to uphold just a few sentences later:

"It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law-such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

How many ways can a document be horrifyingly dishonest and unethical in just a single big-ass sentence?

First off; biased language.  I think it's . . . disingenuous, at least, to say that the pro-choice position can be honestly summed up as advocating for the right to "kill the unborn."  I don't say that pro-choice people are those who 'assert a right to control women's bodies,' do I?  That would be a strawman of their position.  More balanced and objective if the description was, "Pro-choice people assert that a fetus should not reasonably be considered a "person, . . ."  In the same way, to those pro-life folks out there, which of these two statements about your opinion on the matter is more honest:  Pro-life people assert a right to control women's reproductive decisions, or, pro-life people assert that a fetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) has a "personhood."?

Secondly, nobody is asserting a "right to kill the . . . aged and disabled."  This bit is so dishonest, it amounts to an outright lie.  The "pro-choice" position here is that, for example, a person with a chronic, incurable illness that leaves them in a great deal of pain should have the right to decide how to end their own life.  Our position is NOT that we should be able to kill them if we want.  This is effectively the exact opposite of our position.  It is the MD and those who endorse it who advocate forcing something on such persons against their will (sometimes, in the case of some conditions, basically amounting to torture).

Thirdly, we're also wrong to believe that we have "a right to engage in immoral sexual practices"?  What's the solution - government "sexual security" cameras in our bedrooms?  Police raids on people's homes if a neighbor tips them off that they think a gay couple is living next door?  Should Ziztur and I set a court date and hire a lawyer because I put parts of me into parts of her without a wedding ring on?  If you think that these are absurd mischaracterizations of their position, then honestly, if we really shouldn't have the freedom to have sex that the MD declares is 'immoral,' then what the fuck are they suggesting that we do about it?

Fourthly, "even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law . . ."  I've been over this, so I'll just briefly reiterate.  Yes, it's true; we think that it's wrong to outlaw certain couples from getting married just because your religion says that they shouldn't be able to.  I personally think that this follows naturally from your religion being obviously false, but many other Christians recognize that it's immoral to force other people to follow your religious doctrines through the law.  Which brings me to . . .

The fifth major, painfully obvious failure of this single sentence (by my count, at least; I would not be surprised to learn that someone else could identify others).  They actually said it themselves in the previous paragraph:  "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  I am fucking flabbergasted that someone could type that sentence while simultaneously claiming that:

-Women must carry their pregnancies to term against their will because God says so.
-People in chronic pain have no right to decide how to end their own life because God says so.
-The government must exclude gay men and women from a number of socially and financially advantageous rights because God says so.
 -They even imply that people have no right to make private sexual decisions at all if they are "immoral," presumably because God says so.

It's not complicated - The MD acknowledges the ethical statement "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will . . ."  In this very same document, they discuss over and over how people should be compelled by law to obey their specific religious doctrines.  They are doing it fucking wrong.

Sixth and finally, we have the bright red cherry topping this horseshit sundae, "those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments. . ."  Again, this is so dishonest it amounts to an outright lie.  Regardless of whatever other issues there are in a debate about religious freedom of expression, nobody is advocating for restricting their freedom of speech.  I'll make fun of such a seemingly idiotic document like the MD all day long, but I'll never say that they can't express their religious beliefs.  Saying that we're trying to actively infringe upon the freedom of Christians to even simply express their religion is the sort of bizarre claim that really needs to be backed up with specific examples and references.

Tomorrow, we'll get into the specifics of the examples that they offer, and wrap up this ridiculous document.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 4

More from the Manhattan Declaration.  Yep, still ranting about gay marriage.  Remember, I had warned you that the closest thing to an argument in their whole section on gay marriage just repeatedly hammers the old, standard "marriage is about making babies" line?  This bit has me scratching my head:


". . . loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.  That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation."

Um . . . what?  Read that again.  They specifically mention "procreation" as the basis of the marriage, yet they immediately point out that it's just downright stupid to disolve a marriage on the grounds that the couple cannot procreate!  How can they not see the blatant inconsistency here?


The only thing I can think of is that they could be claiming that, specifically, a penis being inserted into a vagina is the basis of marriage.  That it is . . . some kind of procreation "ritual," not the actual reproduction, that matters.  What material difference there is, specifically and in terms of procreation, between the sex of an infertile couple and the sex of homosexual partners, well, they don't elaborate.   Either reproduction is the basis, or it is not.  The whole premise of this inane argument is ridiculous - would they lobby for a couple, one male, one female, who are asexual, with no sexual desire at all, but who wish to adopt, to be forbidden to marry?  Why, then . . . horror of horrors, not a single penis or vagina in use at all!


". . . it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.  Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships?"


Honestly?  Easy answer.  Yes, they should be, and no, they wouldn't.


"The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential."

Um, isn't that exactly what you, the Christian, heterosexual majority, are doing?  This is exactly what has been done throughout all of marriage's history.  It has been redefined to mean a union of choice and mutual love, instead of one arranged or forced.  It has been redefined to include interracial couples.  It has been redefined, starting with polygyny, to mean a union of one man and only one woman, then again to mean a union of one man and many, many women,and back again.   If redefining it again will make the institution worse off, then make that case.  The Manhattan Declaration, though, has NOT done this; it has simply tried to scare people with emotionally-charged, prejudice-exploiting language.


". . . it is the duty of the law to recognize and support [marriage] for the sake of justice and the common good.  If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow.  First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized."


Oh, I see.  The government must recognize and uphold your religious opinion, even if it's discriminatory to others and clearly excludes other people's religious opinions, or you will consider your own religious freedoms to be violated.  It should be obvious that there are religious persons who disagree with your traditional view of marriage; what of their religious freedom?  By this tortured logic, isn't their religious freedom being violated when the government specifically enforces your view of marriage?


"Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral."


Yes, there is a role in public education in promoting a healthy, humanistic societal ethic, or, at the very least, mildly discouraging blatant, outright prejudice.  If there is a rational reason for declaring gay men and women to be immoral people, then make that case.  Sorry, but until then, you are, by definition, a bigot, and you cannot use the public schools to disseminate your bigotry.


"Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends."


Not to get too intellectually elitist, but blah, blah, blah.  There's been no attempt, at all, to make this case so far.  No case that marriage should be intrinsically between one man and one woman, and no specifics of the "damage" of the terrible, terrible gay marriage.  Only repeated, vague statements about how society will somehow be irreparably harmed if certain people are allowed to get married.


"And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture."


Your position would have more credibility if you went after divorce instead of gay marriage, given how much more often divorces occur than gay marriages would occur.  Also, given that Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, but he did specifically state that Christians should not allow divorce, it seems to be the big J's higher priority, too.


"The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant."


Firstly, no, it doesn't, as I mentioned in the last installment of this review, the Bible gives highest honors to men like Jesus and Paul, who never touch a woman at all, and both of them explicitly stated that all Christians should refrain from marriage if they possibly can.  Secondly, the Bible also teaches that marriage, that central part of God's creation covenant, is between one man and as many women as he can afford.


"Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church."


Yes, the Bible often compares "husband and wife" to "Christ and his church."  Um . . . isn't the church expressly subservient to Jesus Christ in all things?  So . . . Christian marriage is unambiguously sexist.  Nice.  Topping it off with a great note, there.

Next time; their final point:  Religious freedom.  Yes, after all this, they actually end the Declaration with a supposed oath to defend religious freedom.  We'll see how that turns out.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 3

The second main point of the Manhattan Declaration, predictably, refers to gay marriage, and it's quite long.  There's so much madness here, I'll need to split this one point of theirs into two blog posts on it's own.

"In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself."

So, obviously, filthy atheists like Ziztur and I should not be permitted to marry.  Being incapable of "the transmission of life," neither should anybody be issued a marriage permit if they are infertile or elderly.  Yes, I know, these are the same objections to this stupid reproductive argument that we've all heard before, but I intend to keep repeating them until I hear a decent answer to them.  This spectacularly bad argument makes up the vast majority of their text on "marriage," and this point about gay marriage has more text than either of the points about abortion or freedom of religion.  They just hammer this "natural reproductive nature" of "true" marriage over and over again.

"In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem."

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, claimed to be perfect in every single way, never married.  Paul never married.  Actually, highest biblical honors are given to men who don't ever touch women, and the Bible states as much.  Matthew 19, 10-12: 

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Paul likewise says, "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. . . .  I wish that all men were as I am. . . .  Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. . . .  I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. . . ."

Etc., etc., etc.  Anti-gay marriage folks always go on and on, in very emotionally-charged language, how important marriage is.  Not only should this rhetoric illustrate how important it is to give marriage rights to everyone, including gay men and women, but it is also directly contrary to the Bible.

"Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society."

Um, no.  A cultural respect for individual freedom and human rights is far more important, for one thing.  Nazi Germany had marriage.  Imperialist Japan had marriage.  Islamic fundamentalism has marriage.  Etc., etc., etc.  Even if this weren't obviously false, again, arguing for the extraordinary value of marriage only illustrates the importance of protecting the marriage rights of everyone.

"Perhaps the most telling - and alarming - indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate.  Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent.  Today it is over 40 percent.  Our society - and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average - is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair."

Except that rising rates of out-of-wedlock birth over the last fifty years would primarily affect crime rates in the last 15-20 years, as those "illegitimate" children reached adolescence and adulthood.  So have crime rates went up or down in the last 15-20 years?  Down.  Sharply.  So, the document is dead wrong.

"We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage.  Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same."

This is what really gets my blood up over the earlier claims about Christians and Christian churches being the ones responsible for abolition, women's suffrage, and civil rights.  They can't examine Christian history with open-minded ethical humility when it comes to those social evils that the Bible explicitly condones, but they are aware of, ashamed of, and need to repent of the fact that some Christians occasionally get divorced?  WTF.

"We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it.  Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners."

This would be a nice sentiment and all, except for two things:  One, they are still describing a person's private sexual choices as immoral without any justification.  If we said this about anyone else's private decisions that don't infringe upon the rights of others in any way, we would transparently expose ourselves as bigots.  Two, this statement, and the larger context in which it appears, illustrates a profound prejudice.  They are trying to claim humility with this seeming recognition that there are other forms of sexual immorality besides homosexuality.  My question is simple:  If homosexual relationships are no worse than premarital or extra-marital sex, pornography, and/or divorce, they why aren't they lobbying for any of these acts to be restricted by law?  Any one of these other forms of "sexual immorality" are far, FAR more widespread than homosexuality, so why are they ignoring them to focus so exclusively on the terrible gays folks?

More about gay marriage next time; like I said, they have a lot to say about how dangerous the monstrous gay folks are.

The Manhattan Declaration; Part 2

So the first part of this document declares boldly and without reservation that it was Christianity and Christianity alone that was responsible for abolition, civil rights, and most laughably of all, women's suffrage.  Ziztur and I discussed this last night, and she pointed out that such a statement could be technically true in one sense, that Christians have always constituted an overwhelming majority in America.  Thus, it wouldn't actually be possible for any of these events to occur unless they received at least some significant support from the Christian majority.

Of course, this doesn't say anything about whether Christianity was the force that originally championed these societal changes.  To my mind, it's clear that if abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. are gates of progress that America passes through, then Christianity (as an overwhelming majority of the population) holds the key to each gate.  Yes, Christianity eventually unlocked each of these gates one by one, but the had to be dragged kicking and screaming to each one, complaining the whole time.

Obviously, Christians will strongly disagree with the conclusion that their religion seems to be intrinsically resistant to ethical, societal progress.  Here's my honest question:  If Christianity was such a champion of these specific ethical causes, then why did they continue to exist for almost two millennium after Jesus Christ?  In contrast, The United States of America, clearly founded as a Secular Humanist nation, began seriously considering these important issues right off the bat, and beginning to accomplish these goals in less than a century.

(/rant)

In any event, the main point of the Manhattan Declaration is three issues.  The first is abortion.  I won't ramble on about it for too long, for the simple reason that the Declaration doesn't even attempt to defend it's view.  I have nothing to argue against.

"A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable."

Basically, the Declaration simply states, over and over again, that they "affirm" that killing people is wrong, and so abortion is too.  This is often the form that arguments against abortion take.  As an aside, I freely admit that pro-choice arguments often take a similar form - people will simply assert that abortion is a woman's reproductive right, and how dare people take that right away.  I'm not saying that such declarations, on either side of the issue, are wrong, because not everybody always speaks specifically to persuade those who disagree.  If you're pro-choice and giving a talk to a pro-choice crowd, of course you won't get into the details of why abortion isn't morally evil.  In the same way, the Manhattan Declaration doesn't exactly seem to be intended for an audience of Secular Humanists, so it's nothing wrong with it, per se . . .

Just be aware, if you're pro-life, and you are trying to persuade others of your opinion, it might seem obvious to you that abortion is murdering an innocent person, but you will never convince a pro-choice person of this simply by stating it.  I know it's hard to believe, but no, really, we pro-choice folks don't sit around talking about how it's stupid that homicide is against the law, about how murdering innocent people should be everybody's right.  We agree with you that killing innocent people is grossly immoral.  We don't agree that a fetus should rationally be considered a "person" (or some variation of this argument).

There's some other interesting bits in this first point about abortion:

"The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion - a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available . . ."

I agree, yet it is exactly conservative Christians in America who are directly combating this goal by opposing contraception and science-based sex education.  Entertainingly, the Manhattan Declaration itself does exactly that, later on, in a different point.  I'll get to that in a future post.

"As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized."

This is the beginning of long rant about several different topics, starting with embryonic stem cells.  I'll just comment briefly on each one.  Regarding stem cells, if you say that a late-term fetus should rationally be considered a "person," I'll respectfully disagree.  If you say that a just-fertilized human egg should be considered a person, . . . honestly?  I'll probably question your sanity and basic powers of reason.  To claim that a clump of cells too small to see with the naked eye is so definitively a "person" that we should not use said clumps to save or improve countless innocent lives is bordering on certifiable.

"At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons."

Only if, in your view, people should not have the freedom to end their life on their own terms, even if they are in extreme pain and/or have a chronic, incurable condition.  As usual, no rational explanation for this stance is provided, nor have I ever heard one.

I'll quote the entire last paragraph, beginning with universal, humanistic morality that we can all agree with, and then degenerating into a simple restatement of previous claims:

"Our concern is not confined to our own nation.  Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and "ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.  We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research.  And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances."

I would only point out that, again, conservative Christianity has been opposed to contraceptive and evidence-based sex education, which is the single greatest weapon against "preventable diseases like AIDS."  As well, no argument is given for embryonic stem-cell research and pro-choice stances on abortion and assisted suicide being equitable to sex trafficking and racial genocide.  If there's a connection there to make, by all means, make it.  Whatever you do, don't simply declare it and expect it to convince people who have already considered your perspective and rejected it.

Next time, the second main point of the Declaration, out of three:  Gay Marriage is evil!  Interestingly, this point receives more text than either of the others.

Recognize us! Now!

The process of science and the scientific method is, almost by definition, atheistic. There is a lack of god in scientific methodology and hypothesis. Hypothesis are written as: "X will have Y effect" and not, "X will have Y effect, unless god does it". Medical hypothesis are written, "Following arthroscopic knee surgery, subjects will have a measurable improvement in 6 outcome measures compared to subjects following typical knee surgery and subjects undergoing no surgery." and not, ""Following arthroscopic knee surgery, subjects will have a measurable improvement in 6 outcome measures compared to subjects following typical knee surgery and subjects undergoing no surgery – unless god decides to be a source of healing power in one of the groups.

I bring this up for a reason. Scientists do not proudly proclaim that their atheistic hypothesis was supported. When a hypothesis is refuted (and the scientist was hoping to support, rather than refute it) the scientist cannot say, "The skeptics skewed the results with their energy" or, "god just did not want my hypothesis to be supported. It's a mystery, but he will work things out in the end." We don't say, "but that's okay, people have been doing this for years and even if the statistics don't show it, I know it works. People aren't statistics". We don't have these unfalsifiable cop-outs to fall back on when we fail to support what we set out to support. We understand that science is messy, gray, nonbinary, and nuanced. Science, unless attempting to ask a specific question about god, leaves god out of the equation, out of the hypothesis, out of the methods, and out of the results.

This is a sarcastic question. It is meant to be rhetorical. Why aren't nontheists and atheists demanding that scientists give credit where credit is due? "Scientists, using atheist principals, discover new planet". "A group of scientists using atheist methodology create a new kind of superglue". "Doctors need not rely on god when practicing medicine". "Computers work because scientists did not factor god into binary language". The scientific method is one in which god does not factor in to hypothesis, methodology, and evidence – unless of course one is hypothesizing about god. One does not conduct science as if god might step in at any moment and skew the data – when the data are skewed, we assume that the skewing is not god screwing with us. Usually.

Isn't it a War on Atheism when headlines read, "Scientists explain puzzling lake asymmetry on Saturn's moon Titan" instead of, "atheistic scientists explain puzzling lake asymmetry on Saturn's moon Titan"? Even if the scientists in their personal lives aren't atheists, they didn't include the god variable in their methodology – they do research atheistically.

You're probably thinking one of three things. Either: yeah! It would be cool if scientists did that! Or: What? Ziztur, you've gone off the deep end, or: okay… Where are you going with this?

The War on Christmas (2009 or otherwise), wherein Christian groups demand that retailers specifically include the word "Christmas" at end of year holiday advertising under threat of boycott, is sort of analogous to atheists demanding that science without a god factor be recognized as atheistic. The same arguments work for either scenario. After all, science has a rich history of not including god in the scientific method. Those scientists are profiting and gaining notoriety with their work, while failing to mention that they don't add a god-factor into their equations! Why would they censor this? How dare they not include the fact that their entire methodology contains no mention of acts of god!

Needless to say, I find the whole "War on the War on Christmas" to be not only intolerant, ironic and hypocritical, but exclusionary (It's not Happy Holidays! It's Merry Christmas!), materialistic (specifically recognize our holiday by the language we choose or we will hurt your business), bigoted (how dare they mention Christmas on equal grounds with the Solstice, a holiday celebrated by witches!) and overly politically correct (minimize the offense of Christians, who are the majority, by mentioning their religious holiday by name or else).

3H1P: Should churches deny services to gay people?

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it.


The following question is by long-time commenter EdW, as answered by Pastor Keith:

I have a good Mormon friend who supports gay marriage rights, but also believes that homosexuality is a sin that should not be tolerated within his church. He's a staunch supporter of civil unions, but believes that churches should have the right to be as discriminatory as they want. His argument is that we should work to change the law, but not people's beliefs or practices, especially not through legal means. I tend to think of this in terms of desegregation -- should shop owners have the right to refuse service to black people?

I'm reminded of the news story the other day about the pastor in (Florida? I think?) who refused to marry the interracial couple, and there was something of an outraged hullabaloo about it. (And yes, I just spelled hullabaloo correctly on the first try. I'm pretty awesome). Yet many, many supporters of gay marriage feel that churches should have every right to deny their services to gay couples.

So, with the lengthy preamble out of the way, my question is this -- to what degree should we lobby for laws that in effect infringe on an organization's discriminatory practices, religious or otherwise?

-EdW

EdW,

Thanks for the question. If acceptable, I will answer the question about lobbying … then I will answer the underlying question about how I as a Christian interact on the issue of gay marriage rights.

I have no personal objections to lobbying for law change. It is the right of a citizen to make their voice heard, and the responsibility of the lawmakers to make good law. However, I do not feel that progress in law has the same impact on the world that changing someone's mind and heart does. On "hot-button" issues like abortion and gay marriage, the best persuasion seems to come from thought-provoking arguments on either side, not on major legal initiatives. In fact the major legal initiatives often anger and embolden whatever side "lost" out in the change. That side then redoubles their efforts to produce another major initiative. This back-and-forth creates the kind of environment where one side gets a law passed, and the other side retaliates by trying to change an amendment. The lasting change will come through well-thought-out arguments diligently repeated persuasively over a long period of time. In short, my opinion is that there's nothing wrong with lobbying, but it's better to attempt to persuade the individuals and organizations involved. Until that happens, the back-and-forth will continue.

If changing hearts and minds is where the real change happens, then people who are not Christians need to become increasingly fluent in Bible. If you can talk to Christians intelligently about their Scriptures, it will go a long way toward persuading them. Let me give a few examples on this issue that would be helpful in a conversation where you're trying to persuade a Christian to be more considerate to homosexuals.

If someone mentions that homosexuality is an "abomination," the conversation may already be too far gone . However, it's helpful to actually have a definition for the word abomination and to be able to discuss the book of Leviticus (18:23, 20:13). One of the following will be more persuasive than the other:

Option 1: "Yes, the Bible says that it is an abomination for two men to sleep together. However, that's said in the book of Leviticus. It also says that it's an abomination to eat shellfish. You can't pick and choose your rules which you will follow and which ones you will not. Do you eat shrimp? Then you are a hypocrite to discriminate against homosexuals."

Option 2: "Yes, the Bible says that it is an abomination for two men to sleep together. However, that's said in the book of Leviticus. That book is part of the Old Testament … the Old Covenant. Those rules don't apply to Christians today, because Jesus changed the way we relate to God. Our relationship with God is based on grace. This is why it's okay for a Christian to eat shellfish today, even though that's also called an abomination. Make sense?

Though similar, many Christians will feel attacked as a hypocrite by option #1, while they will actually be surprised by the depth of insight in option #2 and it can lead to further conversation. Discussing how to apply the Old Testament will be a much more productive conversation if you are trying to change the heart and mind of a Christian.

Another key passage to be able to discuss with a Christian is Romans 1, where Paul goes on a bit of a rant against all the evil in the world. This chapter contains statements like "men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." If trying to persuade a Christian, this is a common point to start attacking the Bible itself as hate-filled, etc. There is a much more effective approach.

Paul in the book of Romans is writing a letter to a church in Rome that is quite large; filled with both Jews and Gentiles. The two groups had some trouble getting along, and the book of Romans is primarily about helping these two groups of people coexist and move forward together. His first chapter plays a key role in that purpose, but is not what one would think. In chapter one, Paul leads out in a somewhat-typical self-righteous diatribe befitting a Jewish Christian of his day. He does this to set up the self-righteous folks at the church at Rome for what they need to hear in what we call chapter 2. After detailing a number of sins that people do that bring negative consequences into their life, Paul shifts gears saying in Romans 2:1: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." He then begins to talk about all the different ways that even Jewish Christians of his day break the law. This rhetorical flourish reaches its climax in Romans 3:22b-24 where Paul says, "There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." He has reached his initial point that whether a person in the church at Rome is a Jewish Christian (who would still desire to follow the Old Covenant) or a Gentile Christian (who knew very little about the Old Covenant), they have the same basis for a relationship with God … the free grace offered through Jesus Christ. If you lay out the book of Romans in this way, you will be able to point out that the few verses that are derogatory toward homosexuality are themselves a set-up to point out the hypocrisy of those who disparage one type of moral failure while ignoring their own. One can then call a Christian friend to remember that their relationship with God is not based on how effectively they've stayed away from sin or moral failure, but rather on the grace He's given through Jesus. The possibility of a Christian having their heart and mind changed through this type of conversation is much higher.

To wrap up, I think changing hearts and minds is more productive than changing laws. The best ways to change the hearts and minds of a Christian is to get to know how they think, and try to show how the good principles they hold can be applied to this issue to reach a humble, gracious, and moral conclusion. Hope that helps, and good luck conversing with your friend.

3H1P: Should churches deny services to gay people?

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it.

The following question is by long-time commenter EdW, as answered by Zizur:

I have a good Mormon friend who supports gay marriage rights, but also believes that homosexuality is a sin that should not be tolerated within his church. He's a staunch supporter of civil unions, but believes that churches should have the right to be as discriminatory as they want. His argument is that we should work to change the law, but not people's beliefs or practices, especially not through legal means. I tend to think of this in terms of desegregation -- should shop owners have the right to refuse service to black people?

I'm reminded of the news story the other day about the pastor in (Florida? I think?) who refused to marry the interracial couple, and there was something of an outraged hullabaloo about it. (And yes, I just spelled hullabaloo correctly on the first try. I'm pretty awesome). Yet many, many supporters of gay marriage feel that churches should have every right to deny their services to gay couples.

So, with the lengthy preamble out of the way, my question is this -- to what degree should we lobby for laws that in effect infringe on an organization's discriminatory practices, religious or otherwise?

-EdW

Gay marriage is certainly a complicate issue. I think that there are two issues regarding gay marriage: what is ultimately most ethical, and what is ultimately most probable or practical. I believe that ultimately, that the government defining marriage to only include "one man and one woman" is a violation of the first amendment. Ideally, the government should untangle its figurative hands from the definition of marriage and let people define it as it suits their particular beliefs. I don't really agree with the "incentives" the government offers for married people, because by offering those incentives, it not only restricts the definition of marriage but it promotes that particular definition. Perhaps this makes me ever so slightly libertarian, but I don't think that one particular view of marriage should be given priority over another view and I do not think that a particular restrictive definition of marriage should be enforced by the government.

Instead, I think the government should recognize civil unions – unions between consenting adults. If said adults want to get married in a church or handfasted naked in the woods, or sign some papers in a courthouse, they are free to do so. However, we're a long way from having the government be entirely disconnected from marriage, so the first step is to have the government stop restricting marriage to a specific definition that is only accepted by some individuals, and we can start that by having the government not restrict marriage to only between one man and one woman.

So, if the government were to stop discriminating against homosexuals, should churches and religious organizations retain the right to discriminate against homosexuals? This is a tough call. On the one hand, I actually want to say, "yes". A religious organization should be able to limit the "marriages" they perform based on their religion – a Catholic priest should not be forced to let a Muslim couple marry in their church and have a Muslim ceremony, an atheist minister should not have to perform a religious ceremony, and a church should not have to perform the marriage ceremony of a gay couple, either. Really though, do churches honestly believe this will be a huge problem, as though gay couples are going to come barging into their church, demanding that they allow them to marry there? I doubt it. Most people want to be married by people they trust, in a place where they feel welcome, embraced and accepted for who they are. If a church does not fit their needs, they will go somewhere else. It seems pretty silly of me to go to a Catholic Church and demand that the priests marry me and my blaspheming boyfriend while refusing to allow them to invoke their god. Similarly, some religious leaders will refuse marriage ceremonies to people who have been divorced.

But how is this different from a church refusing to marry an interracial couple or a couple where one (or both) of the members has a disability?

The news story the other day was actually about a justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple. This is most assuredly wrong. But if the government stops banning gay marriage, will justices of the peace be able to refuse to marry homosexual couples on the grounds that they have a religious objection to it? I think the answer is, "no", but at the same time, I would not want my civil union tainted by a scowling Justice.

Your real question is, "to what degree should we lobby for laws that in effect infringe on an organization's discriminatory practices, religious or otherwise?

I don't think that the ability to be discriminatory is a right. I am appalled by how many people in the world think it is some kind of right, and that taking away someone's ability to discriminate is discriminatory. So you feel very strongly that marriage should be defined as X. Fine. I feel marriage should be defined as Y. Y does not forbid people from marrying because the couple in question possesses the same kinds of genitals. X does. It would be better for everyone if the government did not declare that the definition of marriage was X or Y, but it will take quite a lot more effort to get to that point. Think of it this way: take any argument against civil rights for gays and replace "gay" with "black" or "disabled" or "interracial" and see if your argument still sounds good, or dissolves into a steaming pile of discriminatory bullshit. You can't infringe on an organization's right to be discriminatory, because being discriminatory isn't a right. Our effort and opposition should be proportional to the amount of discrimination and oppression. Given a choice, I will lobby against whichever is the greater evil.

Also, I just want to state for the record that right now, in 2009, most of the opposition to civil rights for gays are from people who are religious – in America, the opposition to gay marriage is mostly by people who are Christian. One day, hundreds of years from now, when homosexuals have the same civil rights as heterosexuals, Christians are going to take credit for it, in the same way that they take credit for abolishing slavery. In order for civil rights for gays to be fully accepted and real, Christians must get behind it. Perhaps Christians will look back and wonder how people could twist the teachings of the Bible in such a way as to use the Bible to justify discrimination, in the same way that we look with distain upon those who used the Bible to justify the enslavement of African-Americans.