Why other pols loathe Cruz

I loved this article from the headline all the way through. It explains the very simple ways that Ted Cruz pretends he's a hero, when he clearly isn't. [Short version: Ted is the lone brave Republican who wants to exercise legislative leverage. But he completely ignores how that strategy failed in 2013.]

As I've said before, I think Cruz is a charlatan. He purposefully fools people. I'm not sure what his goal is in this. Maybe it's just money, but it feels like something more than that, and that's scary. Hopefully Cruz will keep fooling the small minority, and the rest of us will prevent whatever scary future Cruz would bring.

Image: tedcruziscreepy.tumbler.com

Extras. Maybe, someday, someone might write a gothic novel of what the world under Cruz would be like. I can read it and get my dark forebodings fleshed out. Until then, these articles will feed my anxiety: strange Christian supremacist theology and Cruz's father; does Cruz dogwhistle to the same theology: how a racehorse winning the Triple Crown signals the ascent of this weird theology. Alternatively, don't be silly-- Ted Cruz is just a very principled Constitutionalist.

Catching up: Pope says Jews are saved

I almost missed this. Jews are not damned to hell for not accepting Jesus, according to the Vatican. Not only are Jews not damned (despite that crucifixion two thousand years ago), are they saved and are to be considered 'elder brothers.'

But let me clarify. At first I thought the pope himself had declared this. No, afraid not. It was a Vatican committee. And the committee can't quite explain why Jews are saved, instead falling back on the well-used excuse of divine 'mystery.'

Does this sound like they've discovered something new (and convenient)? Maybe, but they claim it's based on St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. It was in there all the time, but was ignored for, um, a few centuries or more. Too bad for all those Jewish criminals killers sinners victims during all those years.

Image: examiner.com

Extras. Sorry, but the Vatican is wrong about this. There's not an exception for Jews (and it's proved by different bible verses). The only reasons I saw this--because of click-bait about Kim Davis and her fabulous victories this year.

Short: The danger of a president with weird ideas

What would President Carson be like? Let's speculate...

We might have weekly inanities about immorality, wickedness, Satan tempting people, and the dangers of believing scientists rather than the bible, preachers, and the goodly prez. That could be easily ignored.

However, what would Carson do in a crisis? Will the soft-spoken believer freeze up? Will he blindly choose some odd course of action based on an obscure biblical passage? Who knows. By the grace of God, we won't find out what he'd do. I may be curious, but I'm not crazy. This is an experiment I don't want to run.

Predicting what Carson will do...

Image: google.com

Extras. Inspired by this article, and particularly this sentence: "Now stay with me while I argue that Ben Carson’s views on the provenance of the pyramids actually do matter."

Need another laugh? "So when does the real Ben Carson, celebrated brain surgeon, finally manage to break free of his captors and emerge to confront the impostor?" -- some guy on twitter

Difficult choice of conscience

We've had pizza shop owners, with video running, say that they wouldn't cater a same-sex wedding because they're Christians. I have my doubts that this was a carefully considered statement.

In contrast, here is a Christian photographer trying to work through the issue:

"I've been asked to photograph a same-sex wedding service (legal in my state), and I’ve said no. I wonder if I did the right thing. After all, this is a business, providing a service. Would it be right for me to refuse to serve a gay couple if I owned a restaurant? I don’t think so... Moreover, I’m not sure that photographing an event is an endorsement of that event. I have photographed weddings of people who were divorced (and I didn’t investigate the background), people who were probably cohabiting, people who were most likely unequally yoked to one another, and so on. 

So I’m kind of caught. My conscience bothers me because I turned this couple down, and my conscience will bother me if I photograph this wedding."

Here, thank God, is a person who sees the different sides of the issue. Is it fair to hold same-sex people as worse and different from the other sinners he photographs--though note that he doesn't 'investigate' the details of his clients' sins. He seems to take a reasonable, business-like approach that their sins aren't really his concern. That was probably how Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers handled divorced, cohabiting, and all the others who weren't holding off on sex until marriage. Perhaps most of these Christian businesspeople didn't even think of these couples as sinful. 

I personally don't believe the biblical sexual rules are correct or are the commandments of God. I'm not sure what sexual rules are correct, or how much it's a matter of morality (this is right, that is wrong) rather than a matter of risk (don't have sex until you know the person fairly well). 

As for the commandments of God, I have no sense of that at all, except that we should do good and not waste our lives. I don't believe, as my parents did, that sex before marriage is wrong, and God says so. In fact, I find that idea either absurd or a cultural/historical artifact.

So I think anti-gay bias is another cultural/historical artifact, and a lot of Americans seem to agree with that.

Christian conscience, Christian doubt

The Christian photographer raising the question of conscience wasn't sure. The minister answering wasn't sure either. What is sad is that the minister doesn't grapple with the issue of why it's moral to serve gay patrons at a restaurant, but not at their wedding. The minister's decision comes down to the problem of giving mixed messages to those around you as to whether same-sex marriage is OK or not. This seems odd to me that the issue comes down to not wanting to confuse other people--that doesn't seem typical for moral issues, that you don't do X because it might confuse people. I have to wonder whether the minister couldn't come up with a better reason, and had to settle for this weak one--since he wasn't going to go the hate/abomination route. 

Strict Christians will be grappling with these issues, but they've done it before, as sexual mores have changed. Courts have told Christians that they couldn't deny rentals to unmarried, cohabiting couples. I don't recall a major backlash over that. Perhaps it seemed too much like not renting to black couples or interracial couples, so the Christian landlords didn't want to go there. 

Perhaps it's an issue for more Christians this time because they can play the underdog against the powerful liberal tide. Gay couples have helped their underdog status by suing them even when the same services from other vendors are readily available. But whether in suing or in refusing, conscience rarely (but occasionally) seems to be the main concern.

Image: cartoonmovement.com

Extras. NY farm owners stopped doing weddings (but not receptions) I hope they found their comfort zone. Julian Sanchez doesn't know where to draw the line either. A list of objectors--a mixed bag.

These Christians seem to think that they're the sole possessors of rigorous thinking. They are also the stalwarts who "refuse to call what is good evil, and what is evil, good." They imagine that they have a monopoly on right thinking, and I intensely dislike monopolies.

Hegemonic sore losers

I think Christianity used to have quite a lock on most of the world, even if they didn't have a plurality of the population by religion. Christian countries were the most powerful. The white Europeans, their stock, and their religion seemed supreme.

But not so fast. There were a fair number of revolutions against this domination, even in the heart of Europe. The reformation was full of murder and mayhem in the name of one Christian sect or other. Anti-Christian feeling moved in a different direction in the 1700's through now, with political and moral philosophers building the foundations for public life that didn't depend on religion.

Religion as necessity?

Perhaps this was possible because religion isn't a necessity for quite a few people. They live largely without religion affecting them much. They manage to earn a living, raise families, get along with their neighbors, and defend their countries without religion playing a big role in any of these necessary parts of life.

So what happens when you realize you don't need religion to grow your crops or make a living? If you don't need it in raising your family? Or in teaching morality and how to live with others?

Well, religion may seem superfluous. But even more so, it may seem like a con game. If your religion requires you to follow strict food rules, strict rules on when you can work, strict taxes on pain of terrible punishment or exile, you might want to throw off that religion.

Rebelling against that old religion

Of course that is what most early Christians did. They jettisoned the accretion of rules that happened to Judaism, and the streamlined the religion quite a bit.

The same instinct is at work today. I look at traditional Judeo-Christian rules, and I see areas where the rules don't make sense. Is there a religious or moral reason that I have to wait until marriage (in my 20's or 30's) to have sex? Is there a religious or moral reason sexual relations between two men is wrong? And remind me what's wrong with occasional masturbation?

This isn't the only area where Christian teaching have been questioned. Christians haven't generally given away everything they owned, as Jesus told his followers to do. They started lending money with interest at some point. I can't think of a single person who has balked at buying a house because they had religious qualms about the mortgage interest.

To me, the sexual rules aren't sacrosanct, and modern life has eliminated some of the practical reasons for those rules. We can now easily have sex without the worry of unintended pregnancy. We know that masturbation doesn't cause blindness or schizophrenia. We know that same-sex attraction is usually a life-long preference, not a temporary surrender to temptation.

Can't let go

Somehow, letting go of these sexual rules has been very hard for some Christians, even the ones who have mortgages. I don't really know why, and I wish I could find out.

In particular, I'm thinking of Rod Dreher. He had an epiphany at some point and realized it was terrible to treat gays badly. However, this epiphany only included beating up gays, denouncing them, and throwing them out of jobs. His understanding didn't extend to realizing that they have the right to marry too. So Dreher, like many conservative or Orthodox Christians, has been very loud in protest against marriage equality.

Now Dreher doesn't understand how anyone can label him a bigot, or be angry with him. After all, he realized that Jesus commands him to have love in his heart, and he does. Isn't that enough? He's not against gays because he hates them, but because his religion commands him to see them as sinners.

Wake up, Rod. You're living in a world where the sexual condemnation you cling to has been largely discredited. You're likely to be dumped on your keister when you try to tell people that God has ordained these rules. That doesn't fly anymore with a large number of people. You can whine about the loss of 'truth' or 'morality,' but my suspicions is that you miss the power to make people follow these rules.

Dreher writes about his own experience of disobedience and conformance, and how that helped in his life. That's fine, but others have vastly different experience, and they take the lessons they learned to heart also. Why Dreher thinks he can get on his high horse and lecture people based on personal luck (sexual continence worked for him AND it's biblical too!!) is beyond me. Yet he never hesitates to do that.

Short-lived amends 

He may have apologized for his formerly hateful ways and statements, but he falls back on the same behavior so readily. Here's an exchange:

Lee says:

The issue you lament came about as a reaction (and inevitably in some cases overreaction) to conservative Christians using their religion as license to dehumanize and mistreat others. If conservative Christians want to complain that they are now being mistreated, they must first own up to their own sin. Unfortunately, one does not need to look far to see self-proclaimed Christians still spouting hate today. Christiantity’s failure to own up to and deal with its own hate-mongers makes its claims of victimhood ring very hollow indeed.

[Rod's reply: It is useful to know that this is all about vengeance for folks like you. There is no amount of apology -- none -- that will satisfy you. It's important for Christians to know this, so we suffer no illusions that those who seek to destroy us personally and take our livelihoods can be appeased. You can't be. I do wish you would quit lying to yourselves about what you want, though, and why you want it. -- RD]

Compare that to this exchange at a religious conference:

Lyons apologized to Andrew on behalf of Christians for vicious treatment of homosexuals. “I know many people did what they thought was right in the name of Jesus,” Lyons said. “I ask for your forgiveness as well.”

“You have it,” said Andrew.

Apologies and pleas for forgiveness don't last long when it's someone else pointing out Dreher's errors. I guess Dreher only believes in making apologies as noblesse oblige, not as an equal. He's got a lot to learn about not being on top. I'll have to see if he changes his tune in a few years.

Image: wgs160.wordpress.com

Extras. Read the whole long post by Dreher. Notice how readily he circles the wagons to defend his tribe. How quickly he forgets the log in his eye.

Finally, my conclusion. Marriage equality, yes. Conscience, yes.

I've wrestled with the issue of good religious people and their objection to same-sex marriage. Long ago I saw the essential equality of all marriages. I support the freedom to marry, without stigma, outside of the cultural norms (which are often cultural strait-jackets).

But I also understand and respect deep religious faith. Many of the most generous, loving people I've ever known have religious beliefs that would condemn me to hell for all eternity. These are the kind of people who would risk their own lives doing missionary work in unsafe areas of the world. How can I condemn people who are so much more generous and open-hearted than I am?

Eventually, I realized a formula. You don't have to support marriage equality, but don't deny it to other people. Don't set yourself up as the judge who decides which humans deserve which human rights.

Finally, I had to wrestle with the issue of whether people who are sincerely against same-sex marriage must be forced to provide services to those weddings. Does the florist have to provide flowers, does the baker have to provide a cake, does the photographer have to capture the moment of the grooms exchanging rings and kissing?

Anti-discrimination rules for public accommodations

Our country been through a similar issue before. If you run a public business, under civil rights laws, you can't discriminate against people of different races, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability status, etc. This was a correct decision. The rights of a business owner don't trump the rights of the public to go about their lives without discrimination in the public sphere. No one is forced to like whites, to privately socialize with people of a disfavored religion, to invite them into your home. But in the public sphere, who must treat them as you treat everyone else--with fairness.

Sexual orientation isn't currently on the list of characteristics that can't be discriminated against. I think it should be, and it is in many states. In general, public opinion reviles discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Most people support fairness for gays in all areas of life, including employment, housing, court, etc.

However, requiring fairness doesn't mean that we (the public) require everyone to view gay sexual choices as equal to other kinds of choices. I don't have to declare that I totally support all kinds of sexual freedom as good and wise, just like I don't have to declare that Tea Party political opinions are just correct as my opinions. I'm not just 'allowed' to disagree--I have the freedom to disagree.

So it is with business owners. They may have to operate as though they are fair and unbiased, but aren't required to adopt those beliefs.

Remember 'Live and Let Live?'

When support for gay rights was much less popular, some of the appeals were for understanding and tolerance of different viewpoints. These were good arguments. Why not live-and-let-live? Can't we give space to people to have different religions, different sexual interests, different languages, different political beliefs? Generally, we want to say 'yes' to this. We aren't required to all think and do the same.

So why doesn't this extend to the florist who is a devout Christian? Doesn't she get to live-and-let-live without being hauled into court for not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding?

Are there limits to how far live-and-let-live goes? Certainly. It's not a carte-blanche to loudly and obnoxiously tell people that you don't like their kind, and therefore you won't have anything to do with them. It doesn't undermine the right of others to expect fair treatment in employment.

I'd like to draw the line on live-and-let-live somewhere short of compelling people to take part in acts they profoundly disagree with. But they still don't get to be bigoted about it. Can I make a conscience-exception only for the sincere people, and not for the bigots? That's the question.

Image: pantheos.com

Burn them out

I've been thinking lately that the fighting in the Middle East seems different in a vague way. A key here is the vagueness, If I can figure out more precisely what is different, I'll might have a new, important insight that I didn't have before. So let's try.

Al-Queda, ISIS, and Boko Harum seem amazingly cruel. They blow up mosques, they blow up markets, they gun down students, the latter two kidnap girls and boast about selling women as slaves. It's barbaric, and it's definitely not in the stream of 20th century Western European behavior.

So, does it seem strange just because it's cultural different? Maybe. I'm surrounded by a liberal-tinged expectation of civility, support for the unfortunate, fair competition rather than conquest, electoral democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and all that.

Perhaps the ISIS and Boko Harum practices seem strange because they are culturally different. However, that explanation doesn't really work well. Japan and China are cultural quite different without causing the distaste and fear that ISIS/Boko Harum do. Besides, Japan, China, Europe, South American, and the US manage to get along.

What's really horrifying about is how the extent of the rejection of modern, western civility. Even the Taliban, who dynamited a precious piece of history (a huge hillside carving of Buddha), didn't go this far in their rejection of modernity. They didn't try to bring back slavery.

I seriously wonder how this philosophy can appeal to many people, and whether it has much of a future. Certainly, modern life has its bad side. We live in crowded conditions, have cheap, unhealthy entertainments, cheap, unhealthy food, and lives with less meaning and purpose than we'd like. But it seems to me that slavery and beheadings aren't the antidote to modernity. Do some people really want to go back to the cruelty of the past? For some, it seems that the answer is 'Yes.'

ISIS in particular is using cruelty to provoke a response. It hopes to provoke a war between Christians and Muslims, and has lately been ramping up the killings and abductions of Christians. Evidently they would relish all-out war, but the western countries aren't going to give it to them.

It's a better strategy (for the West) to limit their involvement, and let the cruelty of these radicals lead to their isolation. Already Jordan and Egypt are taking a stronger stand against ISIS. If only Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates weren't so slow in denouncing ISIS and seriously fighting against them. Of course, that is part of the reason ISIS, Al Queda, and Boko Harum have grown--there is too much support for any Muslim fighters, and their cruelty has (up till now) been a selling point. I certainly hope that has finally tipped. Maybe the supporters, who used to cheer the occasional bombing in Israel or the West, are finally repulsed by the amount of blood. It's about time.

Image: barenakedislam.com

Extra. A fascinating description of the religious underpinnings of ISIS.

Creating his own religion

I'm reading the long set of responses to a question posted by Rod Dreher, an orthodox Christian. He wants to know how people have lost their faith, and he wants to hear the individual stories.

One of the responses was so full of human truth. The writer, as a young child, pretended to be saved so a crazy lady preacher wouldn't hurt him. Then Grandpa (a deacon) made sure the crazy lady never preached there again. Even for a deacon, some of it is tooooo crazy!

This writer has developed his own set of simple religious beliefs:

Only One God. Only One Humanity. Only One Rule ('do unto others…') Only One Time (NOW is our only point of contact with Eternity...) Only One Destiny (either Everybody goes to heaven – after healing – or Nobody does.)

Then he wrote this:

I really don’t much care anymore what the Answer is. It doesn't make a difference on my behavior, or on the behavior of anyone I know. The good people keep on being good, regardless of their religion, and the selfish bastards keep on being selfish, regardless of Their religion.

I love this simplicity, and it feels more truthful than all the wild stories in many religions. Are we supposed to take those seriously? But that's what some people need--a  complex set of myths sold as the gospel truth that happened exactly that way.

Image: pinterest.com

Death to the most hated fool in America

We needn't cry over the demise of Fred Phelps, the inventor of picketing the funerals of those who have died most tragically. His Westboro Baptist Church has been running out of steam, and now rarely even threatens to disrupt public events.*

What can I say about Rev. Phelps, who used his cult zombies to haunt families that lost sons in roadside bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan? I worry that those obnoxious multi-color signs added extra pain to the nightmares of those fathers and mothers. His punishment on Earth wasn't enough for the pain he caused, but that's true for most tyrants, even tinpot ones like Phelps.

Phelps' church was never large, with under 100 families as members, and dwindling was people wised up. Supposedly the church accepted no outside money, but I doubt that. Someone had to pay for the buses and the gas and food and those ghastly signs, even if the faithful slept on the buses and the few workers among them turned over their paychecks. Too many in the US, and possibly internationally, supported his message, and might have given money too:

"... he was one of the very few men in our day and age with the decency to confront and condemn the indecent–that is to say, vile homosexual perverts." -- conservative commenter

The church spawned hate and lawsuits, and even laws. A 2006 law prohibited protests within 300 feet of the entrances to veteran's cemeteries.  That wasn't enough, so there was a second law. Unfortunately, the church frequently sued for their rights and won judgments that helped fund them. Phelps himself was a disbarred lawyer and his daughter argued some of their cases. We may have to suffer through another generation of their form of hate, as ineffective as it was.

Image: nydailynews.com

* Oops, they still protest, but now mostly around Kansas. That's a blessing for us in other parts of the country.

Extras. This obituary has Phelps reflecting after his death. (I won't give away the punchline.) Another victim was Mr. Rogers, whose sin was wanting neighborhoods that were way too friendly for a hater like Phelps. A previous most hated here.

The delicious irony of Christians in the closet

I absolutely hate when bloggers send volleys back and forth, but this one may be worth following, if only in hopes of seeing a few well-placed shots.

Rod Dreher is whining about how Christians can't say that they disagree with same-sex marriage out of fear of losing their jobs, or just being ostracized. Now, if a Christian worker were to say that he thinks homosexuals are disgusting and subhuman, that might deserve the reaction of dismissal, and certainly would deserve some measure of social exile. But Christians aren't saying anything as crude as that. Instead, they're trying to deny them the civil right of marriage.

There is an easy solution to this: stop denying civil rights to gays, and understand that includes all civil rights, including the right to marry. If you're going to parse which human rights a fellow human should have, you're not fully accepting the humanity of that person.

And don't act so surprised and offended that people are angry with you when you don't want them to have the full complement of civil rights. The message you send when you deny rights is: you aren't as human as me. Would you take away voting rights from gays? The right to own property? The right to shop in the markets? The right of burial? No, most Christians wouldn't take away these rights. So notice that the right to marriage is just as important, and don't stand in the way of it happening.

I've written before that I understand the deeply held religious beliefs, but religious people, like all people, must learn how to behave in a diverse society. That includes tempering your statements or paying the consequences. Rod Dreher knows that gay people were forced to hide their beliefs for a very long time:

"Christians and other traditionalists were wrong to have demonized gay people in the past, and forced them to live in the closet for fear of their careers."

Yes, and Christians are still wrong if they think they have to power or the right to choose which rights are granted to gays. The whole idea of rights "being granted" is wrong, as though gays were inferior, but their superiors deigned to pretend otherwise to a certain extent.

Rod Dreher again:

"Gay rights activists did a lot of good work to end this climate of fear, and to wake the rest of us up to the humanity of our gay brothers and sisters, and to increase tolerance for them."

Rod, finish waking up, and see that gays have the same right to marriage as you do, as Jews do, as Christians do, as Muslims do, as all people do. You don't have to support it, like it, celebrate it, but just get out of the way. And if you want to stand in the way of others' civil rights, stop whining that traffic is coming your way.

Image: memegenerator.net

Extra. Andrew Sullivan's reply. There are no doubt other posts as well, but I'm not going to chase them down.

Denying Contraceptive Coverage is Slut-Shaming

First, I'm sorry that this topic is getting so many posts, but there is a good reason. This is one of the few issues where it's possible to nail down the logic and see it for what it is.

People who argue against contraceptive coverage fall into three categories:

1. Those who are against ALL drug coverage, but make the mistake of focusing on contraceptives. 
2. Those who don't want any of their money to go to subsidized contraceptives for parasites who are probably irresponsible sluts.
3. Those who follow religious tenets against the use of contraceptives. 

I'm giving category #1 people the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to identify them. If you ask, why should contraceptives be any different from, say anti-cholesterol drugs, they readily agree that they shouldn't.

For category #3 people, I have to argue that their church's tenets are misguided and/or outdated in this age where we have over 7 billion people thronging the Earth. Also, they cannot and should not force their church teachings on employees. Do they make their employees swear religious oaths? No. So keep religion out of healthcare also.

But a lot of religion tenets come down to category #2, which is disapproval of sex. Often it's clothed as disapproval of wanton, irresponsible sex, but when you scratch the surface, it's a general disapproval of sex.

Image: politicalfun.blogspot.com

However, it makes no sense for this disapproval of wanton sex to apply also to contraceptives. These are used mostly by very responsible people for responsible purposes. Just because prostitutes and sexually adventurous people also use contraceptives, that doesn't make contraceptives evil. Prostitutes and the unchaste also drink water for the same reasons the rest of us do, but we don't have religious prohibitions against water.

So there's no logical reason to deny contraceptive coverage--unless I've missed some other argument. If that's the case, I apologize. However, I really doubt that there is any other argument.

Slut or responsible person?

Image: thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu

Update 1/31/14. Answer to O'Reilly's questions above: No, Bill, I want you to shove that money so far up your ass that it comes out your foul mouth. Plus, I hear you're quite a slut yourself.

The GOP in their contraceptive corner

OK folks, I hope this is the last thing I'll say about the GOP and contraceptives. These guys have really been idiots about contraception. Contraception is a good thing. It lets you have sex with your spouse (something you looked forward to for all or most of your adolescence) without fear of having way too many children that you can't afford. If you're not married, it lets you have sex without fear that you'll have to rush into marriage due to pregnancy or have that awkward child-sharing relationship fraught with disagreements, resentment, and discomfort, which will deeply harm your kid. Or you won't have to make that painful decision to have an abortion because you're not a selfless saint who can deal with pregnancy and giving up the kid. (Aside--who is the patron saint of unwed mothers? Was she an unwed mother, or is he or she another figure to make them feel ashamed.)

Image: east2west.org

So, that's the short version of my case for why CONTRACEPTION = GOOD.

Now, how did the GOP ever embrace the idea that contraception isn't good? I don't know, so I'm going to speculate. Contraception was traditionally outlawed because of some arcane reasons probably having to do with male control and women being in subservient positions. So maybe the GOP, being the party of traditional values, doesn't like the modernity of contraception.

They probably don't like that it gives people more freedom for sexual experimentation, though anyone who's realistic should still appreciate its usefulness for married couples. So perhaps the prudish side of the GOP has won out, and they disapprove of contraception because sluts use it.

Perhaps the GOP has decided to hate everything connected with Planned Parenthood, and that would include contraception. In the same vein, they may have decided to be against everything that the Democrats are for, thus they're against both contraception and Planned Parenthood.

Whatever the bizarre reason that the GOP became the party against contraception, they really need to stop this nonsense. Romney helped when he stated in a debate: "I don't know any state that wants to ban contraception, George." Unfortunately, that was the high point of GOP support for contraception. Weak sauce.

What the GOP needs to do now is to turn the tide and get a lot of prominent Republicans to say that they have indeed used contraception and it's great--it worked really well and they're happy with the results and they had the children when they wanted. Maybe that would remind the loony Republicans to just shut up. Furthermore, perhaps someone will take the loony Republicans into some back room and explain that slut-shaming over contraception might make them feel haughty and superior, but that it's downright stupid as elections go.

OK, yes, I want to be the person who tells the loony Republicans how stupid they are. Rant over... I hope.

(Not an actual quote.)

Image:  suyts.wordpress.com

Extra. Even when intelligent conservatives talk about this, they still end up getting it wrong. Many are against the landmark decision Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court told states to stay out of people's bedrooms. To many conservatives, this was a bad decision because it opened the door to legalization of abortion, gay sex, oral sex and other forms of sex previously called sodomy, and cohabitation. But Griswold v. Connecticut was decided rightly--the state should stay out of your bedroom. I think the majority of Americans strongly agree with that. 

Last outpost of crazy: Conversative haters of Mandela

Goddamn communist, pinko, terrorist murderer Nelson Mandela. Also destroyer of South Africa.

That's Nelson Mandela according to some comments in response to a National Review column where the author admits to being so wrong in his conservative's fear of Mandela.

I suppose that it doesn't matter if you manage to avoid a bloodbath when you negotiate the end of oppressive, violent minority rule. It doesn't matter if you try to heal your country through truth and reconciliation, and you largely succeed at that awesome and unbelievable task. To some people with tiny brains and tiny hearts, you're just scum. And a baby murderer.

For myself, I believe that angels sometimes walk among us, not as supernatural beings, but when people are inspired to do more good than you thought was possible. Farewell, Madiba. Deepest thanks for making a world so much better.

Mandela, Springbok fan. Look it up.

Image: sowetanlive.co.za

Update 12/10/13. Where did the talking points against Mandela come from? WND, perhaps, or Free Republic, or maybe this White Christian neo-Nazi site. Yuck, the places these people hang out.

Sincerely against same-sex marriage

I've been lucky to have had diversity in friends during my life. And by 'friends,' I don't mean casual acquaintances of a few months or years, but people that I will never forget. Several of these friends have been devout born-again Christians.

I'm not in touch with them now, but I wonder what our conversations about marriage equality would be like. Many fundamentalists follow the dictum "Love the sinner, hate the sin." They may have immense caring and compassion for gay individuals, but they don't accept same-sex relationships as good. (Others are less scrupulous about loving the sinner, and their entire reaction is tilted toward hate.)

I'm not going to discuss the biblical justifications for being for or against same-sex relationships. These arguments have thoroughly hashed out, so I'm sure everyone is familiar with them. No repetition here is required.

When I think of some fundamentalists I've known, I can't predict which doctrine they would follow--against homosexuality per tradition or accepting of homosexuality in God's loving nature. I've certainly seen some friends torn between the harsh judgments of their religious and the love that is also preached and practiced there.

For example, one coworker and I shared many stories about our faiths and families. We also shared a strong work ethic and a serious, responsible attitude to life, so we built up a lot of mutual respect. She knew that I wasn't a saved Christian and didn't believe in an afterlife. I still remember the tears in her eyes as I departed from that job and from her life as an unsaved soul. Her final wish was that someday I would believe in heaven. Not because I was just another soul that was lost, but because I was someone about whom she cared deeply.

So I won't condemn this kind of Christian for being an anti-gay bigot because in her heart there wasn't bigotry or hatred. That doesn't mean I give this kind of Christian a pass. I have pushed some of my born-again friends very hard on abortion, and even harder on doctrine of eternal damnation.

I want them to question some of the received dogmas of their religion, but in doing so, I'm asking for a lot. In effect, I'm saying "Because I'm someone you respect and like, I want you to question the religions ideals that you've held for decades." What right do I have to do that? Only the right of the free exchange of ideas between people who love and respect one another. So I can't condemn them if they decide to stick to the traditional interpretation of the Bible, because I've learned to love and respect them even though we disagree on some fundamental questions. For anyone who'll take the time to really listen, really think, and most of all, really care, I have immense respect.

I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. I won't tell my gay friends to give these Christians a pass. But regarding the ones I've gotten to know well, maybe I'd explain how I can still be friends with anti-marriage-equality advocates. It's something like 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.' On many days I'm the sinner, or the person who's wrong, so I remember not to hate.

Image:  pinterest.com

Extras.

1. Love the sinner: origin of the phrase.
2. Love the sinner and deny communion.
3. Love the sinner, rapture the sinner.
4. Love the sinner irks this pastor.
5. Love the sinner or lose the sinner (long).
6. Love the sinner and don't stand in the way.

The Catholic Mistake

Although I'm an agnostic, I'm fairly supportive of religion. I appreciate the sense of a higher mission and the way it inspires so many people. So when I speak against a religious precept, it's with a heavy heart.

I love people, but I love all living things more. Life is the most precious gift in the world, but I don't limit my love to human life. My soul soars at the sight of a majestic tree and I chuckle at the odd shapes of lichens.

Out of respect for all living things, I'm firmly against the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, and especially on birth control:

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. . . God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

For most of our lives, the procreative aspects of sex are superfluous or unwanted. I disagree with Catholic Church philosophy on this point. I place more emphasis on the scientific viewpoint than on odd conceptions of "Natural Law," which we break all the time with lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and the many benefits of modern medicine.

Another scientific point is that the world is already supporting a vast number of humans, and there definite benefits to limiting the surging growth. Countries with unrestrained growth due to religious and cultural teachings against birth control include Egypt, Haiti, and the Philippines. These can be horrendous places to live, especially if you're poor. I think the religious teaching against contraception are largely to blame.

Other lesser arguments are:

•  Contraception allows people to be unfaithful.  (So I can't use it because cheaters might? Thanks a bunch.)
• Loose sexual behavior will pervade society as a result. (True, but that is an individual choice.)
• Men will view women as sex objects if there's birth control. (I believe this can happen with or without contraception, so it's a wash.)

Another argument that the Catholic Church makes:

... it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

Excuse me, but I don't accept that God is the sole entity that should determine whether or not I become pregnant. I'd like to have a huge role in that decision.

One of the most egregious arguments against contraception dates from 307A.D.:

... Some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife."

Spare me the pontificating about the sovereignty of God and how God will provide (if He wants). I want the responsibility for my children, and I want to raise them well. Just don't tell me how many to have. Don't tell me that if I don't want a child at this particular time, I should keep an aspirin between my knees. I'm not a monk or nun, and I want the modern conveniences, including contraception.

So, I believe, by all means, subtract the procreative aspects from the sex act. You're not hurting the world or yourself or God.

Every sperm is sacred: All male panel testifies about contraception.

Thanks to Viable Opposition for the link to Catholic doctrine.

Addendum 6/14/2012. I can't believe I didn't say this before. I have no doubt, that if God were still writing and/or editing the Bible, that the message on procreation wouldn't be "Be fruitful and multiply." Instead, it would be "You've done enough multiplying. Now leave plenty of space for the other creatures of this earth."

Addendum 9/7/2014. I finally wrote a full post on why there are 1) too many workers, and 2) too many people in the world. I declare that I'm for a birthrate below replacement rate. If your religion has a hard time with this, too bad. My view is based on logic that is probably bullet-proof.