Since November of 2012, 10 new states have legalized same-sex marriage by court decision, legislation or popular referendum. Pending appeal, Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia are poised to j oin them in the next couple of years. In reaction to this tremendous push forward, several state legislatures are trying to pull us back to the 1960s.
Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Arizona have all put forward similar legislation that seeks to promote “religious freedom” by allowing anyone from small business owners to emergency responders to deny service based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. So far, Arizona’s is the only one to have passed a state congress.
While these laws have grabbed national headlines, they are just the most outrageous examples of a nationwide response to the changing social attitude towards marriage equality. Last year, in my home state of Minnesota, the Minnesota Family Council successfully lobbied against an anti-bullying law on the grounds that it would be a “gross intrusion on parental autonomy and religious freedom.”
At the core of all these fights is a very specific claim: By making laws against anti-gay bullying or discrimination, we are violating the “religious freedom”of people who want to bully and discriminate.
No.
Religious freedom means you get to believe whatever you want. Religious freedom means you are free to practice your religion to the extent that it does not harm others.
Read the rest here. My next column is also submitted and will be a followup discussion to this week's.
Decided to go through my email wingnut folder and right on top was this GEM from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC). (Emphasis mine)
Dear Collin,
This year the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases that will also have a lasting impact on the very soul of our nation.
Windsor v. United States could overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that codifies the traditional, historic definition of marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.
Likewise, Hollingsworth v. Perry could permanently overturn California's amendment to preserve traditional marriage under Proposition 8.
If the Supreme Court does not uphold the constitutionality of these two laws, it will not only lead to the destruction of traditional marriage as we know it, but subvert our American democratic process and force people like you and me to affirm counterfeit matrimony or face punishment by the federal government.
We simply cannot let this happen!
Hollywood, the education establishment, and even the Obama administration are working overtime to indoctrinate you, me, and other Americans into thinking that same-sex "marriage" is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage,
Both my laughter and tears are locked in battle trying to outdo each other. Gay marriage will not lead to the destruction of a single "traditional" marriage. You know what it will lead too? Gay people getting married.
That's it! Full stop! Case closed! Can we get back to work now?
But according to Tony, there's a lot more we should be worried about should the Supreme court overturn DOMA. Lets see if I can help him answer some of his pressing concerns about the future.
And if they succeed, what will ultimately happen to those of us who rely on Scripture as a guide to life and refuse to "change our politically incorrect views?"
Will the federal government now tell pastors what they can and cannot preach from the pulpit so it conforms to approved government speech?
Ummm..no. 1st amendment makes that illegal. Next?
Will pastors who preach against same-sex "marriage" and homosexual behavior be prosecuted for hate speech?
Will churches that refuse to host same-sex "weddings" lose their tax exemptions?
Probably not, which is a crying shame.
And there are other very serious consequences:
The military will have to provide "married" housing to same-sex couples at taxpayer expense.
They damn well better. All the best for our fabulous men and women in uniform right? Also, why are you so concerned about the taxpayer expense of military spouse housing and not, say, the military?
Christian adoption agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples or close their doors.
Only if they take government money. If they are discriminating for any reason, the government can have no part in it. Really! It's in that constitution you wave around when we try to take away your guns!
Christian-owned companies and even para-church ministries will be coerced to extend married benefits to same-sex couples.
If by "coerced" you mean dragged kicking and screaming into the next century (in your case probably the 19th) by social progress, then yes you will definitely be coerced. If you mean the government will be interfering with your ministries or private businesses, then no. 1st amendment.
And children who won't affirm the legitimacy of the homosexual "lifestyle" choice will be forced to undergo psychological counseling.
First of all, no they won't go through psychological counseling. If they're bullying kids based on their sexuality they'll be treated the same as any other bully.
But secondly, how is it okay, Tony Perkins, to approve of putting gay youth through traumatic, damaging, and ineffective camps that purport to change their sexual orientation, but not okay to change kids' minds about the legitimacy of being gay through counseling?
When I heard that Louie Giglio was invited by the president to pray at the inauguration, I said to myself "self, where have you heard that name before."
This is the same moron who got excited that a protein in our bodies kinda looks like a cross, and he gets invited to speak at the president's inauguration.
Not just speak, pray.
Fortunately, he has reportedly removed himself from the role following some controversial anti-gay statements he made years ago. Including the gay movement is aggressively taking over the family:
We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community. … Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family.
You weren't born gay and it's more like alcoholism or addictive behavior.
I would refer you maybe just to the article “Born gay?” by Joe Dallas, who is the president of a ministry that helps with homosexuals in “recovery.” It was found in Christianity Today in June of 1992. It really unfolds for us that the evidence that they say is there, that the media wants to tell us is there really isn’t there at all. But I want to tell you this tonight. Even if it was there… How do you respond to that? How do you respond to the news reports that we’re hearing in the last few months that there is a genetic tendency to be an over-eater and it’s been supposedly proved by the scientists? That there is a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. Alcoholics by and large have a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. I predict in our lifetimes and not a very long period of time from now, scientists and geneticists will have found a way to prove a gene theory for every malfunction in sinful society. And do you know why? We talked about it the very first week—because we do not want responsibility for our choices.
And the only way to cure the gay is to pray it away with Jesus today.
As the church of Jesus Christ, we cannot sit on the sidelines, we cannot sit back inside our churches, but we must reach out and we must aggressively move toward the homosexual community because we have a message and we’ve got something to say… our message is we know Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is powerful enough to do anything and to do everything. And the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been engrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus.
While it's extremely discouraging that this paramount of Christian love was invited by the White House, I take heart in the fact that these statements are now considered so controversial that even evangelical Christians are shying away from it.
Think about it, would Louie have declined the invitation 10 years ago because of these statements? 15? 20? Sure there would have been plenty of people calling foul and being upset about it, but you would never have seen him withdraw himself from consideration due to public pressure. Reading his official statement it's clear that he still holds his anti-gay views, so why is he backing down on the issue? Because it would "distract from the things we focus on."
Making anti-gay statements now generates enough outrage to derail the ministry of a very popular evangelical mega-pastor. That's change I can believe in.
I was amazed with how many good points Glenn Beck made. I happen to think Glenn is right about a lot of basic principles regarding the constitution, except when he gets to separation of church and state and Penn straightens him out pretty quick on that.
He starts out with a very odd diagram invoking the Nazis and Communists, business as usual, but then he seems to grow a brain somewhere between the chalkboard and the chair.
This is not an endorsement of Beck, far from it. It's just an admission that a broken watch is right twice a day. His principles aren't that bad when it comes to the constitution, he just thinks that we're a lot further from them as a country than we actually are.
I can't believe I actually voted for this guy for years ago.
I expected this from Eric Hovind, Bryan Fisher, Westboro Baptist, and random morons on facebook, but I must admit I was expecting that some people would remain above the fray and be the bigger person about this. I at least hoped they would have the decency to wait a day or so before pontificating about the efficacy of bulletproof prayer shields.
But no, Huckabee added his name to the growing list of opportunistic ideologues who have co-opted this tragedy in an attempt to make the separation of church and state a "one directional wall."
In case you haven't heard already, there's been a horrific shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut. Not five hours after the story broke, the crazies have already sprung onto the scene to point blame at secularists like me.
First there was Eric Hovind's tweet:
And then there was Bryan Fisher's opinion that God didn't prevent the tragedy because "God is not going to go where he is not wanted."
I'm sure there will be many more to follow but these happened so fast after the tragedy that they warrant special scorn.
No, taking school sponsored prayer out of the classroom in accordance with the constitution did NOT cause this shooting. No, I am not responsible for the shooting because I want everyone to be treated equally. And no, putting prayer back in will not magically prevent these tragedies from happening again, Mr. Fisher.
I don't get offended easily, but when someone blames me and mine for causing something like this in a brain exploding use of a nonsequitur and then asking if I'm HAPPY ABOUT IT? Fuck you Eric Hovind, and the Dino you rode in on.
Venaloid just posted this commentary on the recent Dave Silverman interview on the O'Reilly Factor.
In the interview, O'Reilly actually asserts that the government can endorse Christmas legally because "Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy."
Christianity isn't a religion?
Anyways, I'm not going to bother responding to Bill's inanity because Dave Silverman and Venaloid did such a good job already. Enjoy and share.
Many times I have looked back over my writing and noticed too late that I had made an embarrassing spelling or word usage error. My writing style of "get it right the first time" is prone to that sort of mistake. But fortunately, the blog medium allows for incredibly easy retroactive correction.
However, if I was writing my blog on say...giant stone tablets in a very public place...you better believe my writing style would adapt quickly to include a thorough and careful proofreading step.
Ten Commandments outside Oklahoma Capitol building in Oklahoma City
Apparently Rep. Mike Ritze (R)(surprise surprise), who sponsored bill erecting the 2000 lb monument, was in such a hurry to defy the First Amendment that he forgot to even use spellcheck.
What could be a better metaphor for the constitutional illiteracy required to expect the monument to endure the inevitable lawsuit from the ACLU?
Ten Commandments monuments are nothing new and have become a sort of symbol of the lost traditional America by the religious right. Phrases like "Christian Nation" and "founded on Judeo-christian values" have become commonplace in conservative and even some liberal circles. Moreover when the lawsuit comes down it's portrayed as religious oppression of the Christian majority in this country.
Now it's easy to demonstrate that our laws are not "based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." True, three commandments are codified in our legal system: the prohibitions of murder, theft, and bearing false witness (perjury). Contrary to the claim, however, the first five injunctions are actually blatantly unconstitutional (or would be if we made laws of them).
Requiring the worship of Yahweh and no other gods is the antithesis of the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment itself; forbidding taking his name in vain is a blasphemy law in violation of free speech. Work on Sunday )or Saturday depending on your choice of Sabbath) is not a capital offense. Parents are not awarded automatic honor.
Moreover, the commandments against coveting our neighbors property (which includes his wife BTW) would be devastating to our capitalist society. The free market, which is invariably idolized by erectors of these monuments, is built on demand created by desiring your neighbor's possessions.
And on the subject of idolatry, I find a delicious irony in the neardeification that ten commandments monuments have received in recent years. I fully realize that most Americans don't actually know what the ten commandments say, but they should at least realize that venerating a carved stone monument that explicitly prohibits worshiping carved stone monuments is problematic.
But still the monuments go up and still the lawsuits push forward. A common response from theists and non-theists to the lawsuits is "Don't we have bigger things to deal with? Why are you atheists so concerned about a little monument or a cross on public land?"
Van Orden v. Perry is why. In this supreme court case, a ten commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol was "grandfathered" in because it had been in place for decades. The 5-4 decision set a precedent of "if no one complains about it right away, eventually it becomes legal."
If we can learn anything from these ten commandment battles we should learn to make our voices heard. By remaining silent on these seemingly minor issues we establish an atmosphere of indifference to the slow encroachment of religion into our supposedly secular government. Our silence emboldens our enemies, and they have become far too bold already.
My recent post on Blasphemy Day got a lot of hits and very good feedback. Since then I came across a great quote from Christopher Hitchens that reminds us that defending unpopular speech (like blasphemy) is crucial to maintaining our freedom.
"Indeed, as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important, that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view."-Christopher Hitchens
Today Sept 30, 2012 is International Blasphemy Day. This is a day dedicated to raising awareness about the encroachment upon free speech rights by anti-blasphemy laws around the world. Generally there are two reactions that I hear against Blasphemy Day: "We don't want to be offensive. Free speech is about being respectful of diverse ideas and opinions." and "You are just using the banner of free speech to disguise your hatred and mockery of God."
As I've explained before, the second response is just nonsensical, since I can't hate something I don't believe in. However, the first response does give me pause and I'm very sympathetic to that attitude. I would consider myself to be a first amendment absolutist in the sense that I believe all people should have the right to have their voices heard, but that also means that all people must have a right to voice a contrary opinion. Free speech means nothing if people are not free to say things that may offend us. That is why I am diametrically opposed to any legislation that would seek to curtail our most important right, whether domestic or international.
I recognize though that not everyone shares my views on the centrality of the first amendment to our democracy. And while I think we should apply the principles behind this critical right around the world, it has no legal authority beyond our borders. As such, I would like to put forward a laundry list of reasons that I support Blasphemy Day (and why you should too).
1. There is no clear line between religious dissent and blasphemy.
A Christian who denies that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet blasphemes Islam by her very existence. A Jew denies the divinity of Jesus, and hence blasphemes against Christianity. Every single one of you reading this post is a blasphemer or a heretic to someone's religion. By following a different religion than your neighbor (or by following none) you are blaspheming against other religions. The right to blaspheme other religions underlies religious liberty, as we see in countless cases around the globe.
According to a 2009 report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, "The government of Iran continues to engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused."
In Ireland, the constitution requires a blasphemy law to be on the books and in 2009 such a law was passed stating that: "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding 25,000 euro."
An 11 year old Christian girl in Pakistan was accused of burning pages from the Koran. A mob wanted to burn her alive, citing Pakistan's blasphemy laws as legal justification.
The freedom to disagree on which religion to practice or not to practice is in jeopardy around the world and blasphemy laws like these are appearing with increased frequency all over the globe. The freedom of religion depends on the freedom to disagree with other religions, and blasphemy laws disallow that freedom.
2. Opponents of free speech have learned to use the language of religious tolerance against us.
I have no desire to go out of the way to offend people and never do anything with offense being the central goal. But opponents of free speech have learned to speak the language of tolerance and mutual respect and turn it against that attitude.
"Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;"
Sounds reasonable right? I want to respect everyone and don't like hatred and intolerance and it makes sense to encourage their protection right? Well let's read a little further:
"Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;"
Note that they are again talking about the freedom of thought and conscience, but what does protection from contempt mean? Protection from people disagreeing? Let's read on:
"Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions"
Subject to certain restrictions? What restrictions are those?
"...prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred...the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;"
So it starts by telling us that we have to be tolerant and respectful of all religions but ends with telling us what we can and cannot say about them and limiting our free expression.
If you still think that this resolution has good intentions behind it and is promoting an agenda of tolerance and free expression, take a look at who voted for the resolution, who thought this resolution aligned with their goals and ideals:
China, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and others.
All countries with great records on freedom of expression
The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland all voted againstthe resolution. 40 human rights groups petitioned against the motion because they saw through it.
They were trying to put a blasphemy law at the heart of the UN. If you're wondering why you've never heard about it on ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, or any other major news network it's because they didn't cover it. That's why blasphemy day is so important. It draws attention to and starts a conversation about the slow and steady erosion of free speech rights around the world.
We are in danger of conceding the step between the state respecting somebody’s right to believe what they want, and the state automatically respecting the content of the belief itself – and insisting by law that citizens do so also. - Link
3. Blasphemy laws are an appeal to force that limit our ability to question religious ideas
Blasphemy laws spread the idea that it is OK to allow ideas to be defended by laws prohibiting their critique than allowing them to stand or fall on arguments and evidence. The moment you make an idea illegal to criticize you remove all accountability from its adherents. Religion is already uniquely armored against criticism because it lacks a reality check. Adding legal protection from reproach only increases their resistance to new evidence and ideas. It sends the message that censorship and intimidation is a valid and effective way to win an argument.
And it is effective. Think back to the infamous danish cartoons of Muhammad. The fear of reprisal from the extremist Muslim community was so widespread that Yale University press censored the cartoons from the book The Cartoons that Shook the World. Why? "The decision rested solely on the experts’ assessments that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims." In a media that is dominated by images, we are not being allowed the freedom to view and judge the cartoons for ourselves.
When you are dealing with people who are using the Law to force you to respect your beliefs, history has taught us not to expect respect in return. Just as the wall of separation between church and state is not a one-way wall, tolerance is not a one-way street.
4. Not only should we be allowed to criticize religion, but religion needs to be criticized.
Not all religious people are opposed to contraception, LGBT equality, gender equality, stem cell research, assisted suicide, the teaching of science in schools, and more. But the driving force behind the opposition to each is overwhelmingly religious ideologies If we as secularists, and perhaps more importantly liberal believers, are not allowed to voice contrary opinions because of deference to religious beliefs, then we will never escape the gravity well of those ideas.
5. The response to hate speech is not suppression, it's more speech.
In recent weeks a horribly produced and horribly conceived video called The Innocence of Muslims has sparked worldwide controversy and has been used as an excuse to instigate violence. The appropriate response is not to ban the video and imprison the people who made it. The correct response is to speak out against the video and make it clear that we don't support its content or its quality. President Obama's address to the UN on the issue gave me hope that we can move in that direction.
"...the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech...in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn down a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
In the modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us, if that's how we respond." 12:50
But beyond our ideals, history should teach us that suppressing hateful ideas is a poor way of combating them. Holocaust denial is probably one of the most pernicious and widespread negative memes still present in Europe. Austria has actually banned the idea and recently arrested British historian David Irvine for the possibility that he would deny the holocaust. Yet holocaust denial is more prevalent in those countries that ban it than those who allow open discussion and critique of the position.
Sometimes you just have to appreciate something for itself and blasphemy can be very entertaining. To a non-believer, it's much like having a mirror-smashing party on Friday the 13th while walking under as many ladders as possible. Blasphemy is a victim-less crime, and even if by some off chance God is real I think he could take care of himself. Why should his followers need to step in to defend their all powerful deity?
