A Facebook friend recently posted a link to an interesting story about the possibility of a future world where responsibility for - and control over - reproduction could eventually be more evenly shared by men and women. In the blog The Last Word on Nothing, Sally Adee discussed pregnancy, abortion, women's and men's rights in light of ongoing research into the development of external womb technology. Whether it is futuristic fantasy or a real possibility, the topic of ectogenesis shines a spotlight on one of the thorniest issues related to heterosexual human sexuality: unplanned pregnancy.
Coming soon: a brave new world?
Right now, though, there is no handy external womb to help level the moral playing field between men and women when it comes to decisions about preventing or coping with unwanted pregnancy. Women must face all of the emotional and physical risks and demands of a life-altering, physically-depleting, potentially life-threatening experience which results in their almost total loss of bodily autonomy and they usually face most of the burden of the financial and social costs as well. Men who father unplanned children may be held legally responsible for some, none or all of the pregnancy-related medical costs in addition to nearly two decades of child support - if they accept the responsibilities of paternity (or can be proven to be the biological father of a child and forced to accept responsibility).
None of the above is a big problem for two people who have freely chosen to take on these risks; who have planned for and consented to a pregnancy and who happily plan to be jointly responsible should the pregnancy result in the live birth of a child. The above risks and responsibilities become a serious problem, though, when the two people have not planned for and consented to pregnancy. The physical, psychological and financial risks to a mother and the psychological and financial risks to a father of an unexpected pregnancy are far too high for the possibility to be dismissed lightly. Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is easily prevented by mutually respectful sexual partners and it is easily aborted in the earliest stages in the unlikely event that responsible contraceptive efforts fail. Childbirth should never be accidental, unplanned or forced.
No sex, no problems! That should work!
But, the uncomfortable truth is that, in a religion-soaked culture, people who are sexually active - especially young people with uteri - are presumed to be consenting to the possibility of pregnancy whenever they have heterosexual sex - even if it is non-consensual sex. This has been strenuously underlined in society through abstinence-only pregnancy prevention programs, suppression of contraceptive information for sexually active young people, rape victim blaming, and waves of legislation designed to restrict access to female-controlled birth control and abortion services - even if pregnancy has resulted from rape, incest or coercion. The religiously-motivated "abstinence only" advice to repress natural, healthy sexual desires by avoiding all forms of sexual expression is nearly as ineffective as it is stupid and psychologically abusive.
Less loudly proclaimed, but no less true, is that young people with penises are presumed to be consenting to the possibility of pregnancy whenever they have heterosexual sex, too. The law in most states requires young men to contribute child support toward their progeny's expenses until 18 years of age. Since young men do not suffer any direct physical, educational, social or employment interruptions due to pregnancy, they are often in a far better position to prosper in life than their pregnant female counterparts. The gap widens throughout life as fewer than half of pregnant teens ever manage to finish high school and less than 2% complete a college degree even by the age of 30. Yet, a depressingly small per centage of men actually meet these responsibilities.
Reading the comments under the article on external wombs, I was not surprised to find the often-cited complaint from a male reader that it is unfair that a man may be legally required to support children that he may not have wanted. This speaks to the point above: that the role of men in an unplanned pregnancy is very much downplayed in society, leaving many men surprised and angry when they discover that they may be held legally responsible for support, even if they did not consent to fatherhood.
Sure, give your heart, but don't lose your mind!
In a perfect world, no unplanned pregnancy could ever occur. But, we do not live in a perfect world. Therefore, it is essential that sexually active people respect and care for themselves as well as their partners in a happy, healthy relationship, whether it is a long-term, monogamous partnership or a single joyous sexual encounter. Luckily, wherever there is safe access to affordable, reliable birth control, this situation can be easily handled by caring - and responsible - sexual partners. It's true that contraception is not a perfect tool for preventing unwanted pregnancy: the failure rate for contraception when only one sexual partner "handles it" is higher than necessary for many reasons, but the main reason is usually operator error. However, when more than one form of birth control is used simultaneously, the failure rate drops significantly. The logical solution to that problem is for both sexual partners to use a reliable form of birth control to protect themselves and each other from operator error. If a condom is one of the two contraceptives used, there is the added bonus of protection from STDs! Win, win!
I think the foundational understanding should be this: healthy, sexually mature human beings should be able to enjoy worry-free consensual sex. It is one of the joys of being human. In healthy heterosexual relationships, all participants take responsibility for protecting themselves and their partners from unplanned pregnancy. Unless both partners have willingly agreed to try to become parents and both have explicitly consented to actively pursuing parenthood every time they have sex, then both partners must assume that there is no consent to pregnancy, though consent to sex may still be enthusiastic. For every single sexual encounter except those explicitly meant to result in conception, all participants should use some form of contraception.
Indispensable equipment for fun, sexy times!
What if your partner will not use birth control? If your partner will not use birth control, perhaps s/he is assuming that you have consented to the possibility of parenthood.You know what you need to do: Correct the assumption before you have sex! If you correct the assumption and your partner still refuses to use birth control, then it is time to consider whether this person respects you and deserves to have a sexual relationship with you. Why would you want to have a sexual relationship with a person who does not respect you? There are millions of people in the world - quite a few of them very interested in a healthy sexual relationship with you. Get out there and find someone else who respects and cares about you!
Look, if you are a man who is unprepared to become a father, or if your partner has not explicitly consented to try to become a parent with you right now, then do not engage in sex without using some form of male-controlled birth control. Men who, like the commenter on the ectogenesis thread, whine immaturely that "she said that pregnancy is unlikely! (she lied!)", or who complain that they think wearing a condom reduces their pleasure (so they won't wear them, dammit!) are men who are too immature for sexual activity. It is every human being's responsibility to prevent unplanned parenthood. There is a wide array of products out there designed to enhance your sexual experience safely and at least one of them will work out just fine for you. Sex feels great with or without a condom, but subjecting your partner (and yourself) to the risk of an unplanned pregnancy because you want an already awesome experience to be even better (for you) is a lousy way to show respect and caring to a partner.
All-important accoutrements for fun, sexy times!
If you are a woman who is unprepared to become a mother, or if your partner has not explicitly consented to try to become a parent with you right now, then do not engage in sex without using some form of female-controlled birth control. Women who have become unwillingly pregnant may whine immaturely that "he promised that he would look after contraception!(he lied!)", or who complain that the pill or the IUD may have unpleasant side effects or that it feels too slutty to plan ahead to prevent pregnancy, are women who are too immature for sexual activity. It is every human being's responsibility to prevent unplanned parenthood. There is a vast selection of products out there to enable you to enjoy worry-free sex and with a little effort you will find the one that works well for you. Sex is a wonderful enrichment of life, but subjecting your partner (and yourself) to the risk of an ill-timed pregnancy because you want an already awesome experience to feel thrillingly (for you) spontaneous is a terrible way to show caring and respect to a partner.
We have sexual relationships with other people: our actions affect our partners, and we must have the maturity to treat them with the same consideration that we hope for ourselves. Control over your own fertility should never willingly be ceded to another person, not only because unwilling or unplanned parenthood can and often does result, but also because every child deserves to be conceived knowingly and deliberately by two people who have made a conscious choice to be parents.
Religious conservatives get it so wrong when they declare that extra-marital, non-procreative sex is immoral. Consensual sex is moral, natural and good. But, consensual sex does not mean consent to pregnancy. Whenever you engage in sex without using personal birth control, you are unfairly denying your partner the right to consent to or not to consent to a possible pregnancy. And do you know what? That would be immoral.
[Michael Shermer]
Science is the best tool ever devised
For understanding how the world works
[Jacob Bronowski]
Science is a very human form of knowledge
We are always at the brink of the known
[Carl Sagan]
Science is a collaborative enterprise
Spanning the generations
We remember those who prepared the way
Seeing for them also
[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
If you're scientifically literate,
The world looks very different to you
And that understanding empowers you
Refrain:
[Richard Dawkins]
There's real poetry in the real world
Science is the poetry of reality
[Sagan]
We can do science
And with it, we can improve our lives
[Jill Tarter]
The story of humans is the story of ideas
That shine light into dark corners
[Lawrence Krauss]
Scientists love mysteries
They love not knowing
[Richard Feynman]
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things
I think it's much more interesting
[Brian Greene]
There's a larger universal reality
of which we are all a part
[Stephen Hawking]
The further we probe into the universe
The more remarkable are the discoveries we make
[Carolyn Porco]
The quest for the truth, in and of itself,
Is a story that's filled with insights
(Refrain)
[Greene]
From our lonely point in the cosmos
We have through the power of thought
Been able to peer back to a brief moment
After the beginning of the universe
[PZ Myers]
I think that science changes the way your mind works
To think a little more deeply about things
[Dawkins]
Science replaces private prejudice
With publicly verifiable evidence
A breath of fresh air from TheraminTrees on a Monday morning.
I was delighted to find this Spanish translation of the video. Bravo to TheraminTrees (or whomever is responsible) for making this excellent work more accessible!
“I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record to say that [s]he knew or understood the mind of god. Yet this is precisely the qualification which the godly must claim—so modestly and so humbly—to possess. It is time to withdraw our 'respect' from such fantastic claims, all of them aimed at the exertion of power over other humans in the real and material world.” ― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
Respect. We hear a lot about it. But, how do we as individuals and as a society determine who is deserving of our respect? The Paige Sultzbach story last week got me thinking about this.
Most of us are taught that we must show respect for the essential humanity of all people. We are told in school, at work and at home that we must respect other people as our equals - fellow human beings. Beyond this baseline, though, people are usually expected to earn any higher, more deferential level of respect through their meritorious behavior. We are not usually expected to pay respect to people who behave immorally, who harm us or who harm other people. Usually, we are not compelled to respect ridiculous or destructive ideas, either. But there is one glaring exception to these sensible guidelines: religion.
We hear every single day that we owe special, unassailable, respect for the religious beliefs of others, simply because they are religious beliefs. There is no way to evaluate the relative merits of religious ideas because the very act of questioning, evaluating or criticizing religious beliefs is deemed disrespectful and being disrespectful of religion is taboo. This catch-22 situation means that even when religious ideas clearly cause harm to ourselves or others, the cultural taboo which demands unearned respect for religious dogma and practices also forbids questioning them.
More precisely, people are pressured every day of their lives to pay respect - and be subordinate - to the religiousmajority wherever they live. In Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (to name a few countries under explicit Islamic rule) that would be the Muslim majority. In the USA, Denmark, Hungary, Canada and Great Britain (to name a few countries with explicit or implicit Christian state religions) it is the Christian majority. Of all of these, the United States was the first to explicitly guarantee in its Constitution that no single religion would be established by the state, thus preventing the official empowerment of one religious group over all others. In this way, the framers of the Constitution hoped to provide the foundation for a truly revolutionary new kind of nation: a country where people could be as free as humanly possible; where the rights and welfare of the individual would be balanced as far as humanly possible with the rights and welfare of the rest of the people, preventing both tyranny of the majority and the rise of theocratic dictators.
Freedom of religion!* *For Christians only.
The founding fathers, who were educated in religious and political history, understood that religious sectarianism has always resulted in oppression of minorities and the rise of theocratic dynasties - usually, but not always monarchies. Whether they were monarchies or putative republics, the ruling elites always claimed to rule by divine right. The framers of the US Constitution - James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in particular - recognized that constant sectarian strife and vicious social inequities enabled by the power structures which churches prop up would destroy Americans' hopes for a better life in the fledgling new state as surely as the suffocation of those very hopes had driven them out of Europe. And the founders understood that it was state-sanctioned empowerment of favored groups (nearly always identified by religion) which was the reason why the common people in every country in the world lived in miserable poverty under the rule of religiously-privileged "noble" classes.
Demonstrating a wisdom beyond experience (because such a nation had never been tried before), they determined that, in order to form a more perfect union, the United States must be kept free of the appalling religious strife that had destroyed virtually every great civilization in history before them. They were convinced that freedom of religion in a nation that could not legally favor any one religion over the others would offer the best hope for the country to prosper, by enabling the people to prosper in peaceful coexistence as equals.
But there have always been ambitious groups who seek to restore the bad old days of feudal oppression for their own benefit. There have always been people who consider themselves the chosen ones - the nobility which is called to rule over the lesser classes. Before the ink was dry on the US Constitution, religious groups were attempting to circumvent the prohibition of establishment of state religions. The freedom to practice their own religion has never been enough for some Christians; they have always sought special status and special power. That battle over the separation of church and state has been waxing and waning constantly in the 225+ years since Independence, and while the Constitutional guarantee has held in theory, in practice the religious power-play has succeeded in carving so many inroads into the separation of church and state that the country has been reduced to a de facto Christian nation.
You want to build a mosque? Well, we have news for you. Just guess whose country we think this is!
In theory, the First Amendment still protects religious minorities and non-believers from unwanted Christian intrusion into their lives, but in practice this is not so. From public holidays honoring Christian holy days to public religious displays, to compelled silence for Christian prayers in legislatures, in schools and at events of huge public significance, from the casual assumption of Christian privilege and prominence to the very real favoritism via tax exemption and government funding which has enriched churches - secretly and without public oversight - at the public expense, the reality is that churches, especially Christian churches, are intimately entwined with the state. The battle to gain special status and the resulting economic and political power was on from the moment James Madison signed the First Amendment (actually even before) and for good reason from the point of view of the churches. They have benefited enormously from these unconstitutional arrangements.
The truth is that the Christian religion has been quietly empowered both financially and politically, and it aims to gain supreme power by replacing the current republic with a Bible-based state. Christian conservatives will never cede that power willingly. The truth is that when minority religions or the non-religious expect equal respect from the Christian majority, the Christian majority cries persecution and refuses to honor the Constitution that they claim to uphold, but which they are undermining because they hate it as a threat to their ambitions. When a minority's beliefs conflict with majority Christian beliefs, the majority will use every avenue available to force the minority to accept having Christian belief shoved down its throat, even when the Constitution has promised that this will not happen. For Christians, the First Amendment guarantees their religion; they believe that it guarantees that they have the right to strip away the freedom of others to enjoy public life free of Christian proselytizing and the presumption of Christian supremacy. Christians regard the insistence of others that the Constitution guarantees them the same freedoms and rights as Christians as a challenge to Christian rights.
...as long as it is Christianity
Merely requesting that the Constitutional guarantee for religious freedom for all be upheld results in public outcry from the majority, lawsuits, threats and ostracism of the individual(s) who dare to stand up for the right of the minority not to be oppressed by the Christian majority. Respect for Christian beliefs is deemed of such paramount importance that we must disrespect the beliefs of others or we are accused of persecuting Christians and oppressing Christian belief. On the rare occasions when citizens (sometimes even Christian themselves) push back against the ubiquitousness of Christian belief - for example by objecting to its illegal injection into the publicly funded spheres of our society - the Christian majority shrieks that it is being oppressed or persecuted.
The very act of respecting the beliefs of non-Christians - or even of allowing them to be visible, free to simply existin this society - is perceived by Christians as an attack upon them. In short, the Christian majority claims to be oppressed if they are prevented from oppressing others. It is an amazing fact of western life that the concept of religious persecution has been perverted by the Christian majority to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable as a meaningful description of the reality of what persecution actually means. It has been turned on its head. In the United States today, Christian religious belief is accorded such a level of public respect that it must be deferred to in every situation. In schools, in government offices, in supermarkets, hospitals and gas stations, non-Christians cannot escape the constant demand for public obeisance to Christianity.
Ah, religious respect for girls and women.
Last week, a young girl was made the scapegoat in a fundamentalist Catholic power-play. The fact that Christian misogyny is still so open and accepted in society is bad enough, but the repeated expressions of respect by everyone involved - including the victims of the discrimination itself - for this medieval, systemic marginalization of women and girls was little short of amazing. In a breathtaking show of oppositional apologia, the ultra-conservative Catholic school in question brazenly couched its policy of discrimination against girls as "teaching boys to respect ladies". Apparently, the only way to "respect ladies" is to bar them from sports they are qualified to play, deny them opportunities to compete with their ability peers and generally limit their horizons as far as possible within strictly segregated, narrowly traditional gender roles.
The gender roles that Our Lady of Sorrows and similar ultra-conservative Christian organizations advocate for boys and girls tend - as always when "religious tradition" is invoked - to mean these things: active, dynamic, leadership roles for boys; passive, submissive, invisible roles for girls. In this religiously-fueled zeal to squeeze their female adherents into a suffocatingly circumscribed world of few joys and almost no choices, conservative Christians are exactly like their conservative brethren of other faiths - ultra-orthodox Jews and the Islamist Taliban - which enshrine repression of women into their orthodoxy under the same perniciously virtuous-sounding label of "respect for women".
A lifetime of shrouded invisibility. Now, that's respect!
These religious extremists do not respect women. Their actions betray that their motives are the polar opposite of respectful; they intend not to respect the rights and autonomy - the humanity - of women and girls, but todeny them autonomy and rights - and their humanity. The purpose of this dogma is to control women for the use and service of men: to keep them subservient, less than men, silenced and invisible. The farce of conservative respect for women is nothing more than a cruelly ironic cover for the conservative campaign for the subjugation of women. There is real harm being done in the name of religion and it ought not to be allowed to continue without vigorous criticism.
I do not respect the beliefs of Our Lady of Sorrows school. I condemn their beliefs and their actions as the immoral, repressive expression of deeply misogynistic theology. Attempts to establish medieval religious extremism should never go unchallenged in a civilized, egalitarian, free society. We would do well to remember that no society is impervious to the ever-present danger of right-wing authoritarianism. Domestic turmoil usually lays the conditions for the rise of oppressive theocracies, but war and failed government are not the only ways that authoritarian rule can gain a foothold in a contemporary society. Too often, authoritarian theocratic regimes take over when the people of a country have become complacently overconfident in their ability to detect and deflect such extremism. Tolerance of religious oppression is not respectful. It is foolhardy.
It is time to stop paying undeserved respect to religious groups which marginalize and disrespect selected groups of human beings - usually female human beings. People who possess sincere respect for the essential humanity and dignity of others must refuse to offer "respect" for these oppressive ideologies. We must stand up and declare that this behavior is an affront to human dignity. It is immoral and people must have the courage to call it what it is. Religion is powerful. It is powerful enough to call for the elimination of its opponents in most parts of the world, and most religions do not hesitate to do so when they are threatened. But, if people who value freedom of religion and who understand the threat which tyranny of the majority poses will not stand up, then we are - willingly? - participating in the destruction of our own democratic republic.
Like Dawkins, I find the reality of our existence thrilling.
A little inspiration for a Saturday morning.
Lyrics:
[Narrator]
With every century
Our eyes on the universe have been opened anew
We are witness
To the very brink of time and space
[Robert Jastrow]
We must ask ourselves
We who are so proud of our accomplishments
What is our place in the cosmic perspective of life?
[Carl Sagan]
The exploration of the cosmos
Is a voyage of self discovery
As long as there have been humans
We have searched for our place in the cosmos
[Richard Dawkins]
Are there things about the universe
That will be forever beyond our grasp?
Are there things about the universe that are
Ungraspable?
[Sagan]
One of the great revelations of space exploration
Is the image of the earth, finite and lonely
Bearing the entire human species
Through the oceans of space and time
[Dawkins]
Matter flows from place to place
And momentarily comes together to be you
Some people find that thought disturbing
I find the reality thrilling
[Sagan]
As the ancient mythmakers knew
We're children equally of the earth and the sky
In our tenure on this planet, we've accumulated
Dangerous evolutionary baggage
We've also acquired compassion for others,
Love for our children,
And a great soaring passionate intelligence
The clear tools for our continued survival
[Michio Kaku]
We could be in the middle
Of an inter-galactic conversation
And we wouldn't even know
[Sagan]
We've begun at last
To wonder about our origins
Star stuff contemplating the stars
Tracing that long path
Our obligation to survive and flourish
Is owed not just to ourselves
But also to that cosmos
Ancient and vast, from which we spring
The ACAA state baseball championship game was canceled due to Catholic misogyny. Tell the truth, CNN!
CNN reports that a Catholic school in Arizona displayed its festering misogyny for all to see last night, when it denied its boys' baseball team an opportunity to play in the Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship baseball game.
The Christian religion will continue to behave in an openly misogynistic manner until a critical mass in society finally rejects it, but I am sure the justified outrage in the public reactions and the media reporting on the story might help move things in the right direction, amirite?
But, wait! The CNN story begins with this blatantly misleading - and, naturally, victim-blaming - line (emphasis on bald misrepresentation, mine):
"The Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship baseball game wasn't played Thursday night because Mesa Prep's second baseman is a girl."
CNN fail. Again.
Wrong, CNN.
The game wasn't played on Thursday night because of the bigotry of the unnamed officials at Our Lady of Sorrows school. The cowardly nameless spokesperson(s) for the school denied their students a chance to play for the state championship because of their refusal to allow their boys to mix with girls in sports. The presence of Paige Sultzbach on the field did not stop the game; Catholic misogyny did. I think people should ask why the CNN writer, Brad Lendon, played so willingly into the narrative that it was "because of the girl" that this game was cancelled.
Moving down the page, the article goes from bad to worse.
"“It takes tremendous moral courage to stand by what it is you believe, and they are doing what they think is right,” Mesa Prep Headmaster Robert Wagner told KTVK."
Wrong, Mr. Wagner.
Why would you excuse the behavior of another school which robbed not only its own students of a great experience, but yours as well? What does it say about your attitude toward girls - and toward Paige's presence on the baseball team - when you are comfortable describing the baldly misogynistic discrimination by another school against one of your students as an act of "tremendous moral courage"? Seriously, WTF?
Women in sports? The horror!
It takes no courage at all to single out, victimize and diminish a lone teenaged girl out of a sea of teenaged boys. Our Lady of Sorrows school made a power play. They know that social sentiment will support them in blaming this young girl for the fact that they robbed a group of deserving boys of the chance to play in a state championship. They know they can count on the same old, depressingly predictable victim-blaming: if only that one girl had just sat out, none of this would have happened! Why did everyone have to suffer just because of her?
It is part of a larger power play, too. This Catholic school's goal is to put pressure on the entire league to eliminate opportunities for girls like Paige who had no other option to play other than the boys' team. They ruined the championship for everyone in the league and have neatly set up a problem for next year. They have thrown down a challenge to the other participants in the league, one which will undermine morale and leave all the teams in the league wondering what will be the point if such a thing will surely happen again (possibly with additional schools of "tremendous moral courage" similarly emboldened to refuse to play Mesa Prep if Paige is on the field). But, thanks to the manner of the reporting and the collusion of pandering officials like Mr. Wagner, the blame for it all will be placed squarely and unfairly on the shoulders of one Paige Sultzbach.
They know how the the implacable tyranny of majorities works: the powerful never ask themselves, "Wait a minute, why should the weaker among us always have to lose privileges?" - they say, "Why the hell should all of us have to give the weaker ones the same privileges we enjoy? We won't do it!". Including one girl (or even more girls) in the game (if they qualify for the team by the same rules as the boys) should not have been difficult. It isn't difficult. Games involving hand-eye coordination and other non-gender specific abilities are not barriers for inclusiveness. But, for religious and patriarchal societies, it is the inclusion of girlsitself that is anathema. Girls are other, and Bible-based theism demands that they be marginalized. That is systemic misogyny.
The endgame is to force girls out of sports unless they can be ghettoized into all-girl sports programs (read: programs given short shrift in time, resources and promotion in many schools, especially religious schools). With reporting like Brad Lendon's and attitudes like Mr. Wagner's, they may succeed.
That's right, insecure men. Those scary female eyes are looking at you!
Thanks to my nifty son-in-law, DvdD for pointing me toward this story!
Everyone deserves a little bit of awesome on a Friday morning. Enjoy!
Lyrics:
[deGrasse Tyson]
We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically
[Feynman]
I think nature's imagination
Is so much greater than man's
She's never going to let us relax
[Sagan]
We live in an in-between universe
Where things change all right
But according to patterns, rules,
Or as we call them, laws of nature
[Nye]
I'm this guy standing on a planet
Really I'm just a speck
Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck
To think about all of this
To think about the vast emptiness of space
There's billions and billions of stars
Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan]
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
But the way those atoms are put together
The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space
The stars are other suns
We have traveled this way before
And there is much to be learned
I find it elevating and exhilarating
To discover that we live in a universe
Which permits the evolution of molecular machines
As intricate and subtle as we
[deGrasse Tyson]
I know that the molecules in my body are traceable
To phenomena in the cosmos
That makes me want to grab people in the street
And say, have you heard this??
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[Feynman]
There's this tremendous mess
Of waves all over in space
Which is the light bouncing around the room
And going from one thing to the other
And it's all really there
But you gotta stop and think about it
About the complexity to really get the pleasure
And it's all really there
The inconceivable nature of nature
via Pharyngula. Better to laugh than to cry, I suppose! "(GOP), it's not you, it's - no, no it's you."
Bill Donahue, chief American Catholic (sorry Santorum), is outraged over President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality for all. In an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN last night, Donahue was unequivocal about where he stands:
United States Catholic Congress?
Perhaps someday, Bill.
You've got majority Christians
on your side, after all.
"I want the law to discriminate against straight people who live together — I used to call it shacking up, now it’s called cohabitation — I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles, against gays and unions." Bill Donahue on CNN.
Got that everyone? Phil proudly and publicly speaks for the "moral majority", the Christian right who so enthusiastically supported Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and the entire cast of Bible-believing theocrats who are currently running the Republican party. He wants the law to discriminate against anyone whose life and "choices" do not pass his the Biblical sniff test.
But wait, what did Jesus have to say about abortion? Nothing, you say? Ok, well, what did he say about gay marriage? Oops, nothing again! Well, surely Jesus had something to say about a man and a woman and holy matrimony...?
Bingo! Why yes, yes Jesus DID mention the holy bond between a man and a woman. It is the only currently relevant relationship arrangement that he did comment on: Jesus was against divorce.
Since Christians are fighting against laws
which make Jesus weep, they ought to
criminalize people who divorce.
You first, Donahue!
""And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Matthew 19:1-9.
Phil Donahue, who is divorced, is in a tizzy over gay marriage and abortion, and yet he is curiously undisturbed by divorce, the only social issue of these three that Jesus actually condemned, clearly and unequivocally. Jesus pointed out that the provision for divorce in Mosaic law was made because Moses had to accommodate the "hardness of heart" of the men of his time, but now that Jesus was there, that Mosaic law no longer applies. Old covenant/New Covenant. It's simple, really.
Except that it isn't.
So, let's try to get this straight: Christians want gay marriage and abortion outlawed because they claim that some vague prohibitions of these things appear - however ambiguously and subject to interpretation - in the Old Testament of their holy book. Bible-believers claim that this is solid Biblical law and they will do everything in their power to enforce it - not just within their own religious communities, but throughout society - by working tirelessly to write state laws that force their religion down everyone else's throat. In other words, to establish a Bible-based authoritarian theocracy - the Iran of the west, if you will.
Sure there were hundreds of "laws"
but come on, laws, schmaws. The Christian right will decidewhat is or isn't law now. Got that, everyone?
But wait! The Old Testament also laid down rules about 600+ other things, ranging from rules about food, dress, associating with people of different genders, tending animals, keeping house and countless other matters of daily life, out of which the brief, often mangled verses that modern Christians point to to condemn homosexuality and abortion are carefully cherry-picked. Never mind those verses, modern Christians chuckle, they are obviously not meant to bind us today. Only a select few prohibitions are still in effect today, and fundamentalistChristians will decidewhich ones will become the law of the land, thanks very much to the Christian majority - especially you, moderates; they just could not have done it without you! - which has given them unprecedented political power.
Some Christians, Donahue presumably among them, feel A-OK - actually passionate - about persecuting GLBT people claiming their "authority" to do so is derived from the vicious teachings laid down in the Old Testament. They feel A-OK about tormenting and subjugating women too, denying them free agency and denying them the right to control what happens to their own bodies, citing the Bible as the inerrant source of their knowledge of what is the righteous treatment of women.
Except when a "moral majority" says it is.
Got that, sluts, homos and godless socialists?
Yet, these same Christians argue with no apparent discomfort that they are also A-OK wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, not stoning their children to death for disobedience and (usually) refusing to condemn a raped virgin daughter to marry the rapist (other peoples' daughters, of course, are sluts) - rules which are likewise laid down in the very same Old Testament books. But that is different, they argue. Those rules were only meant for that time and that place. Those rules went by the wayside once Jesus came along. Out with the Old Covenant with Moses, in with the New Covenant through Jesus. Read the black text, follow the red! Bible-belief is so simple. God is good!
Turning to the New Testament, we find that Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. If Christians follow the red text, and abide by the New Covenant that Jesus is believed to have made with them, then Christians ought to make no judgement on homosexuality. Further, Jesus specifically stated that homosexuality can be inborn (Matthew 19:12). Indeed, by following other words directly attributable to Jesus, Christians of good conscience ought to be supporting equal rights and fighting for the protection and dignity of those who are marginalized and downtrodden in society, too.
So which will it be, Christians? Which Testament do you plan to force onto the entire population of the United States when your ambition of a Christian theocracy is fully realized?
Bible-believers unite!
Biblical Law in the USA!
The Old Testament condemns homosexuality and demands that women he subjugated almost totally - mere chattel to be used by men for reproduction. It also demands that parents kill their children for disobedience, and it prohibits countless activities which are widely practiced by Christians today. If the religious right is following the Old Testament, then they had better get right with God and follow all of it, instead of cherry-picking. Stop eating pork and shellfish, legislate stonings for disobedient children, force your daughters into marriage to rapists; get with the Bible-based program here!
The New Testament emphasizes charity toward the poor, protection for the weak and helpless, loving forgiveness for others, turning the other cheek and above all, refraining from judging others. Jesus said nothing ever about homosexuality (or abortion) and in fact, he affirmed that homosexuality is inborn - which spoils the Christian argument that it is a choice, thus putting them at odds with God's creation, the filthy sinners - and he condemned divorce. Christian self-named "Jesus-freaks" had better get right with Jesus and follow all of his teachings, instead of cherry-picking. Give up your money and look after the poor, accept that homosexuality is inborn and leave your judgement to God, turn the other cheek and above all, no divorce! Did you get that, Bill?
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:1-5
Bill Donahue again: "I want the law to discriminate against straight people who live together — I used to call it shacking up, now it’s called cohabitation — I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles, against gays and unions."
Gee, Bill. Personally, I want the law to discriminate against hypocritical assholes who wield the Bible as a cudgel against those they hate.
In an interview with ABC today, President Barack Obama became the first president of the United States to publicly declare his support for marriage rights for all citizens. It only took 44 presidents to get to the true spirit of the constitution.
Hope and change? We're still waiting.
Thank you, Mr. President.
But, what took you so long?
I'll be watching for support of equality for all citizens - not just straight citizens with penises - in the coming months. Preferably before, not after, key votes where the monstrous majority can wield its destructive power to strip away human rights from their fellow citizens.
By the way, how is it that constitutionally guaranteed rights are permitted to be stripped from people via a simple majority vote at all? Did I miss the memo? Has our democratic republic been reduced to a simple democracy whereby a tyranny of the majority is now underway? How did this happen?
Bigots of North Carolina, take a good look, this is for you (someday, it will happen!)
It looks like the religious overlords have been victorious in North Carolina. Early poll returns are pointing toward around 59% of North Carolinians in favor of a draconian and unnecessary constitutional amendment that will ban any and all domestic unions in the state unless they are traditional marriages between one man and one woman.
The amendment was redundant in one way because gay marriage is currently illegal in the state already, but this amendment will make it very much harder impossible for same-sex couples to achieve any partner rights at all. The amendment will also take away civil union rights currently enjoyed by some North Carolinians in a few counties and will also impact many other types of domestic arrangements for families.
Another consequence of this amendment will be that now only married women will receive protections from domestic abuse under the law. Women in civil unions and their children will no longer be protected by state laws governing domestic violence and abuse, child support and so forth.
Of course, the real targets were LGBT people, but as always with the Christian right, if they can take down a few women as collateral damage while hitting their main targets with a kill shot, so much the better in their view. Keep the gays and the women down where they belong.
This sickening bigotry is entirely based on religious ideology. It is unconstitutional and it is illegal. It is also unAmerican. It is tyranny of the majority.
Religious power in this country has reached a tipping point. It is obscenely, unconstitutionally abusive. When a few religious tzars dictate the law of the land, the country has bowed to authoritarian, theological fascism. Will the moderate, progressive spirit ever recover in the United States?
As a gesture of defiance and hope, I raise my fist in solidarity with the 40%+ of horrified progressives in North Carolina.
There is not too much that I could write that hasn't already been written about the vote today in North Carolina. Def Shepherd (link to the right) has written eloquently, passionately and sometimes angrily on this topic over the past couple of months, finishing up yesterday with this 11th hour thoughtful post yesterday. If the ballot initiative banning any unions other than one between one man and one woman is approved tonight, then North Carolina will have banned not only gay marriage but also many other forms of domestic unions and civil unions. The draconian measure would change marriage rights for current partnerships as well as prevent any future legal partnerships if they do not meet the narrow, religious standard set by the initiative's proponents.
Let's call this vote what it really is: a push by religion to dehumanize some people.
It is time for people to speak out - loudly - against this blatant discrimination. This egregious denial of civil rights to people based upon religious ideology is unconstitutional and it is unAmerican.
Why do these Christian zealots hate America so much?
It is time for people to speak out. It is time for people of good conscience in this country to stand up to the tyranny of the religious majority and declare that in a democratic republic, the rights and freedoms of all people are to be respected.
No, freedom of religion does NOT mean that any religion can force other people to live by its ideology. Religious freedom means the adherents of that religion are free to obey their religion's ideology, not that they can enshrine their religion into law in order to take away the freedom of others.
The opinion polls leading up to the NC primary were not encouraging. But hopefully, there has been more movement in the direction of love and decency than those polls have indicated. Tonight, we will see.
Please view the video below. I warn you - it is heartbreaking.
The New York Times reports that Maurice Sendak, legendary author of children's stories including Where the Wild Things Are, died this morning at the age of 83.
The insight that Sendak expressed in his work was fresh and revolutionary:
“Grown-ups desperately need to feel safe, and then they project onto the kids. But what none of us seem to realize is how smart kids are." Maurice Sendak
I think the genre of Children's Literature was vastly enriched by Maurice Sendak, but I could not say this any better than his friend and editor, Ursula Nordstrom:
“You may not be Tolstoy,” Ms. Nordstrom once wrote to Mr. Sendak after he expressed self-doubt, “but Tolstoy wasn’t Sendak, either. You have a vast and beautiful genius.” Ursula Nordstrom, Harper & Row.
Stephen Colbert interviewed Maurice Sendak for his program The Colbert Report. The interview was aired in two parts. You can view the first part here. Below, you will find the second part. Colbert is his usual hilarious deadpan self, but Sendak will charm you with his sincerity, his humor and his ability to more than match Colbert for wit and timing.
Do stick it out till the end - Maurice Sendak has the last word and he is marvelous (sorry ebook aficionados!).
RIP Mr. Sendak. The world of Children's Books has lost a shining star.
Brief, succinct, powerful. From TheraminTrees, "there are no gods"
"A dialogue with only one participant is a monologue."
I'm posting this video today because I like the timing, as well. The author/speaker refers to the very Bible stories which were the subjects of my first two Barmy Bible Studies - the stories of Abraham and Noah. These stories, which are so popular for scaring teaching little children, are a window into the twisted world of theistic "morality". It is likely that many future atheists begin their journey out of the horror of religious belief when they are told these stories.
TheraminTrees has a uniquely clear, easy to understand way of explaining how it was that so many freethinkers made the journey from theism to atheism.
It's a rainy Monday morning, and I am recovering from the weekend trip for the graduation. I've got nothing (yet!). Lucky for us, there is always something excellent out there on the interweb!
Lyle Lovett, "God will forgive you (but I won't)". (via AJ Milne at Pharyngula)
Lyle Lovett's song is the perfect introduction for the point of today's post. No offense to Mr. Lovett, mind you, because his song is beautiful, thoughtful and heartbreakingly honest, even though it is built on a popular delusion. Like most Christians, the songwriter describes a psychological split where he offloads emotions he cannot reconcile right now onto another part of himself - his god part - while he owns up to the paramount emotion that he is experiencing. He channels his pain and anger into the song, while constantly reminding the object of his thwarted affections that there is a part of himself that already forgives.
To acknowledge one's negative (potentially destructive) feelings, express them harmlessly (through art) and allow the budding of positive resolution of those feelings in a way that one can handle is one of the highest forms of human moral behaviour. In religious believers, this expression of one's humanity is often achieved by appealing to the god idea, which is really only the ideation of a more powerful self. It is his humanity that makes Lovett's song beautiful and sad and - ultimately - forgiving.
Lyle Lovett's sincere song acknowledging his very human inability to forgive and forget immediately after a heartbreak contrasts pretty strongly with the reality of the Christian notion of "forgiveness". The demonstrably untrue idea that Christians "love the sinner, hate the sin" is one that is tossed around as a 'given' in the current culture of extreme religiosity. It is this notion that is trotted out to quash any fears that a religious basis is a dangerous one for any society. The Christian notion of forgiveness is also the foundation for the false claim of Christian 'tolerance', and the laws which undue reverence for this claim have been passed, through which the fears of oppressed minorities are realized.
The truth is that all too many Christians experience the god/self split quite differently from what Lyle Lovett describes in his song. Few Christians are willing or able to own up to their feelings of rage and hatred for people different from themselves by whom they feel threatened. Yet, they are psychologically uncomfortable with the knowledge that they do feel this type of hatred, rage and desire to punish, harm or destroy those whose very existence make them feel threatened. In order to maintain hir sense that s/he is a good person - a True Christian™ - the believer offloads hir hatred and rage onto the god part, instead.
P.Z. Myers posted a fine example of this true Christian behaviour this morning. As an outspoken atheist and a critic of the harm religion causes in society, Dr. Myers is a frequent target of hate mail from True Christians™. Here is an excerpt from one such letter he received.
"God doesn’t love you A lot of Christians are big on forgiveness, I’m not. God fucking hates your guts. He is sitting up there just watching you, watching you with bated breath, with a stopwatch just waiting until you finally croak in 30 or 40 or however many years, and then he will do a little jig before going down to the Pearly Gares and giving Peter the day off, and he will bring you up to the Gates, and make you think that you’re going to make it in, and then PUNK’D! Into hell, where Beelzebub and Lucifer and Leviathan and Hitler will take turns kicking you right in the wiener for all eternity. Have fun, asshole..."via Pharyngula.
As revolting as this is, what is more frightening is the knowledge that it is a foundational belief of Christians that their god wills punishment and eternal torture for all who they feel are against them. What is more frightening is that, like Abraham in this week's Barmy Bible Study many Christians believe that they can know the will of their unknowable, invisible, silent god - and they act upon their interpretations of this will. One needs only to peruse the Bible, the Christian blueprint for morality based upon "God's word" to see that it would take very little for a determined group of Christians to begin a serious push for the elimination of groups of others who trouble them.
The Bible lays out justifications for murder and genocide which Christians comfortably accommodate and see as righteous and godly. Christians believe that they can feel and know in their hearts what their god wills, which means that there is no objective way to counteract their beliefs with reality. There is no way to protect people from the danger of Christian oppression because the source of the Christian justification for their actions is a psychological one - literally voices in peoples' heads and feelings in their hearts - and this religion has been granted unmatched privilege and power to influence and control society.
Christians believe that gay marriage should be prevented, because they know that oppression of LGBT people is righteous and good in God's eyes. They know that women's rights must be restricted because the Bible tells them that women are inferior, evil, temptresses who must be controlled for the survival of society. They know that brown people all over the world are like those who threatened the Chosen People in the Bible, so cruel measures - even war and genocide - can be taken to destroy them, with their god's blessing.
Religious moderates who continue to urge that progressives respect and tolerate the dangerous extremism that has been growing in the west do so not only at the risk of imperiling their non-white or unbelieving neighbors (among many groups under threat), but at the risk of losing their own freedom and safety. Do moderates imagine that after the extremists finish with the people on their original hit list, their fundamentalist fervor will not then be turned against their moderate brethren? Fundamentalists already have begun to point out just how vast the differences are between the True Believers and those liberal or progressive Christians. There is nothing new under the sun. I hope that religious moderates who are enabling Christian extremists in order to protect their own privilege have paid attention to history. Just food for thought.
