There’s been a lot of debate concerning the definition of marriage. I know many conservatives are offended guys like me call them on the fact that the real reason they dislike gays marrying is because they are homophobic. I’m accused of making blanket statements about conservatives, and of labeling people.

Now, I want to make it clear to everyone that I’m not trying to make a person feel inferior for being a homophobe. Homosexuality is only now becoming more accepted, and I know of many friends and family members who have a certain degree of prejudice against them. But that’s the thing; it’s a controllable degree, and the trick is to try and rise above your upbringing to overcome some of our less noble emotions.

Even so, there’s still a large segment of the religious right who will tell you they want the definition to stay the same for religious reasons, not because of any real homophobia. Fine. If you want it that way, however, you’re going to have to follow it to the letter and stop choosing only the stuff you like. Here are some of the rules courtesy of Daily Kos:

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in
  addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
• Marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
  virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
  (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
• In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required  you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Any takers?

There was a comment that appeared in one of my articles which I felt needed to be personally addressed, due mostly to the fact I’ve been asked similar questions before. These questions usually devolve into simply “why do you have to pick on MY religion”, and I thought it might be fair to answer it as candidly as I can, to avoid looking as though I may be unfairly picking on one specific religion. Here is the quote:

Why do you insist on bashing Christians? If you don’t believe in God that’s fine, but why insult those who believe? I don’t believe in insulting you for your belief, don’t insult mine. Christmas is a Christian holiday because we celebrate the birth of Christ! If you don’t believe in it why do you take off work for Christmas, all of you who don’t believe should work! We as a Country have compromised on so much that we have lost focus! A company named Tyson has dropped celebrating Labor day and recognized a Muslim holiday. Why is no one complaining about that? Labor day is a day to recognize the CHRISTIAN men and woman who built this Country, who LABORED hard for all of us. And one more thing, are you gay? Yes, it is unnatural to be with the same sex, take religion out of it if you want, but it’s still not right! I care about you as much as any one else and I hope the best for you! I pray you find truth in your journey here on earth! God bless

The anatomy of such questions is usually identical. They boil down to two propositions: 1) that Christianity (or any other religion) is being maliciously attacked without provocation, and 2) that I should be thankful they exist. From the perspective of a Christian, I can understand how it might seem as though I unfairly single them out. The fact I do is due is not to any specific prejudice, but because it is the dominant religion which exerts the most influence on my life and culture. It would be like asking a cheetah why he pursues the gazelle; there is no malice in his actions. The cheetah is driven by instinct, and also by the fact the gazelle is one of the few plentiful sources of food, and even the seemingly savage way in which he attacks his prey is only due to his need to survive.

Christians may occasionally feel as though they are being singled out, but in actuality, the cultural and political dominance they have secured makes any small assault bounce off their seemingly invincible armor coating. They seem frightened these attacks are personal, but pointing out the hypocrisy, cruelty, and sheer impossibility of the claims made by religion serves not to damage the individual believer, but the belief itself. It isn’t Christians I have a problem with; it’s Christianity. If that sounds a little weird, you’ve obviously never been vacationing in foreign country as an American. The hostility they encounter in foreign nations is not directed at them, but rather at the institution they represent. Much of the world hates America, but still love Americans.

As for the second point, I will go on record and state I am not grateful for Christianity. Part of me still resents when works of ancient philosophers and thinkers were almost entirely destroyed by the early Christian church, which chose to erase everything in the past which conflicted with their world view. Archimedes is said to have discovered the principles of calculus almost 2000 years before Newton, but his writings were erased and rebound as prayer books. The fact remains Christianity robbed the world of progress for almost 1700 years, and has been adamantly fighting progress ever since. Think of all the great minds through time that were extinguished in the hot flames of heretical punishment. Today, the fact stem cell research is still illegal is only a small demonstration of the Church’s increased insistence that progress and discovery are bad.

So why pick on Christians? Sure, the Muslim world may be a terrifying place for many people. It does not change the fact the Western world still has the religious leash of Christianity around its neck. If Islam became the dominant religion of the North America, you can bet I would be ‘picking’ on them more.

I do offer a question in response to your question, dear sir: If the conviction in your religion is so strong, why do you care what I say? If you are in the right and I am in the wrong, why should you feel oppressed by my apparent babbling? A part of you might be thinking the reason you care is your wish to have my soul saved, but surely that isn’t the only reason. Like most religious people, you seek a homogony of thought. You may secretly doubt even the least fantastic claims of your religion, and find comfort in the fact a vast majority of others feel as you do. It may appear shocking to you, but my belief is strong enough I would not change my mind even if every single human being thought differently than I. The conviction there is no God does not stem from the beliefs of my parents, friends, or neighbors. They are my own. Once a person comes to realize the universe is not controlled by a ‘parent’ in the sky but rather by simple natural laws, any other proposition to the contrary seems both childish and mundane. It would be akin to believing once more Santa is real.

I offer to you the idea it is the homogony of your beliefs that makes you secure, and not the inalienable truth of your religion. If you did believe Christianity was undeniably true, then there would be no need to worry about the likes of me. You will see with time, however, more and more human beings will come to doubt the incredible claims made by your holy book. It’s only a matter of time.

Here’s a quote to stick on your fridge:

It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at [sic] de-religioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.

The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.

This is a fellow who would equate the supposed “War on Christmas” with the complete economic meltdown of his country. Blaming atheists on a crisis that was a direct consequence of the deregulation of very sensitive markets makes about as much sense as crediting the alignment of certain planets for the characteristics of human beings (more on that another day). This whole argument is baseless, ignorant, and shows a complete lack of any fundamental understanding of the economy. No, evangelical parishes having more power to influence people would not have saved America, sir.

I have a bit of a message to all the Christians getting up at arms and worried about their precious holiday losing ground in America: A lucky thing called the 1st amendment protects people from having YOUR religion shoved down their throats. That people choose to use Holidays instead of Christmas just demonstrates people are respectful of other cultures and traditions. Some of these same ‘oppressed’ Christians are the same people who vote to disallow gays from marrying or adopting kids. Yeah, not being able to say Merry Christmas really sucks compared to that, doesn’t it?

I came across this website, Charter for Compassion, which is the latest attempt by religious moderates to extend an olive branch to other religions in the hope of curbing fundamentalism. The site asks people to discuss stories of compassion that they have experienced in their lives. I believe it is their hope to communicate through these stories the idea all people share the need for acts of kindness regardless of their religious creed. It is also, in my opinion, entirely futile.

Religious fundamentalism isn’t something you can combat by showing more unity across the spectrum of religious belief. In fact, this act of reconciling differences is one of the main forces that actually DRIVES fundamentalism. The rejection of modern values, and the isolationism in the face of a rising global community are powerful forces in the foundation of today’s religious fundamentalism.

From their video, I extracted a few quotes to specifically comment on, mainly because I find them to be somewhat naïve and at times, dishonest.

“As a Muslim, You have to submit to the will of God, and submitting to the will of God means that you have to be compassionate and kind to your fellow human beings”

It’s true Islam does translate into submission, but there are passages in the Qur’an that are definitely not about being compassionate towards your fellow man. There are countless passages making reference to how unbelievers are doomed to hell, and in some versions of the Qur’an, there are distinct passages meant to entice followers to violence. “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:36-)” These are not encouraging words, and it is naïve to assume the interpretation of God’s will is compassion towards non believers.

“Every Religion has a history of intolerance, and every religion has principles for overcoming intolerance”

Religion does not have any internal mechanisms for overcoming intolerance, specifically because it rejects any principles that are not part of its accepted dogma. This statement is entirely false; today’s Christian moderates are motivated towards universal acceptance in spite of their religion, not because of it.

“We need a charter for our own souls, for our own sake, but also for the sake of our world, our perilously divided world”

If I said religion was entirely responsible for dividing the world, I would come out as both foolish and ignorant, but there’s no denying it has been a big part of the problem, especially as the world becomes smaller. Nationalism is making way for a stronger global community, but religious exclusion has thrown roadblocks in this effort. There will never be a charter that is accepted by all religions, and even if there were, it would not discourage fundamentalism. Everything seems to indicate it would only be encouraged.

“The Golden Rule is a Golden rule is so many different world religions”

The Golden Rule isn’t limited to religion, and there’s no reason to credit it with it. Social species recognize the survival advantage of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. The rule applies not only to humans, but also to chimpanzees, lions, dolphins, and countless other species. It appears to be an instinct rather than a dogma, and I see no reason to think this rule would not apply if religion was to disappear.

It’s a nice attempt to create a synchronicity within the religious community, but for all intents and purposes, it’s also entirely useless. Religious moderates, as Sam Harris has argued, form the theological foundation for fundamentalists. To properly denounce them, you have to be ready to criticizes your own dogma.

Question: The Old Testament quite clearly states the Israelites were ordered by God to kill the Canaanites. Every man, woman, and child was to be slaughtered. If this story is historical truth, and God really did issue this command, is he not then admonishing genocide?

This is the very same question asked of Dr. Willian Craig, a research professor of Philosophy and the proud owner of ReasonableFaith.org. If you’re unfamiliar with what Christian apologists do, think of it as an entire field of theology intended to try and explain away some of the most troubling aspects of the Bible. It’s not an easy job, but some feel compelled to try.

Dr. Craig’s answer is long winded, so I thought I’d boil it down to the fundamental quotes:

God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

If you think this sounds dangerously like admonishing the acts of delusional people who think God is commanding them to commit genocide, it’s not the end of the argument.

Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just [sic] judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God.

Now isn’t that convenient? Islamic fundamentalists were only wrong for flying planes into the World Trade Center because they had the wrong God. Silly me; here I had the delusion acts of murder and genocide were universally bad.