More Proof Religion Creates Nutjobs, or Something More Basic?

The world had its weekly WTF moment earlier when a British schoolteacher working at a private high school in Sudan was arrested and threatened with death for permitting 20 of her 23 charges to name a stuffed teddy bear "Mohammad", a name which is also the most popular boy's name in the country.  On cue, religious nutjobs took to the street demanding that Gillian Gibbons be killed on the grounds of "insulting Islam".

Perhaps I should not be continually surprised by the ability of religion to turn civilized, sentient people into murderous knucklewalkers.  But I still am.  This case makes no sense, and makes you wonder what the motives for demanding the death of Gibbons really are.  We are all aware of how viciously misogynous Islam is -- most Judeo-Christian religions are, for that matter.  Nobody demanded the death of any of the students, who were raised in Islam and so should know better, and presumably male, since most Muslim countries pretty much proclaim women to be anathema upon puberty.  The fact that the teacher was female and Western likely also whetted their taste for blood.  I'm inclined to think that had the teacher been American she would be dead already (though I would hope that any American woman would have far more intelligence than to choose to work in a country like Sudan).

So is this really a case of Muslim overreaction, or are there people in Sudan who just want an excuse to kill? 

Supreme Court Clubs Free Speech in "Bong Hits" Case

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been making some interesting decisions. Most of them have been, I feel, correct for the most part, but everyone has been holding their breath over the first boneheaded ruling of the freshly-right-leaning Court. Here it is.

The Supreme Court upheld a school principal's right to confiscate a banner put up by a student solely because it appeared to advocate drug use. The court case out of Juneau, Alaska, upheld the actions of high school principal Deborah Roberts, which included confiscating the banner, which read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", and suspending the student Joseph Frederick for violating a school policy banning the advocacy of illegal drug use.

According to the Reuters article of the ruling, Frederick claimed the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002. But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana, and Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.

I think we all understand that laws and court cases, especially free speech cases, are usually decided at the fringes of generally accepted behavior.  But this ruling appears to run blatantly into the mundane.  Now, any school official can silence a student for any speech concerning drug use.  This is far too broad a ruling to be reasonable.  Could a principal discipline a student for writing a research paper supporting the legalization of drugs?  After this ruling, it appears so.

What bugs me is not just the ruling, which is absurd.  If the Supreme Court had ruled that the Federal government had no jurisdiction in what is really a state case and is leaving well enough alone, that would at least show a bit of thought put into it.  But instead, the War on Drugs rears its ugly head, as the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts actually said a principal may restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

The 1st Amendment is one of those concepts in American law where usually it is totally obvious to everyone, in both political parties and on both ends of the political spectrum, that only the most agregious of expression may be restricted.  But this ruling suggests that any Constitutional right may be curtailed if it does not come down on the side of the War on Drugs that the Neo-Cons are on.

This is a scary ruling, boys and girls.

Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President (for as long as it lasts, anyway)

It's stunning -- bordering on embarassing -- that the 2008 Presidential Campaign is already underway, and it's only June of 2007.  Perhaps this is a reflection of the country's total loss of patience with George W. Bush, though more likely it's a side effect of the presidential primary oneupmanship that could possibly have the first votes cast in December.  Absurd, but I guess that's states' jealousy of New Hampshire more than anything else.  I suppose, though, that this is the closest America gets to an "opposition leader", which most countries seem to have and whose existence they take for granted.

In what looks to be a record-sized candidate field, even more, I think, than the 62 candidates appearing on the ballot in New Hampshire in 1992 -- 25 Republicans, 36 Democrats and one Libertarian -- there are many angles, views, approaches, and proposals for future policy.  Nobody is bulletproof, and nearly everyone has a significant flaw of some type.  The great thing about that is it produces some wonderful political space opera.

One candidate raising far more than their fair share of eyebrows is Ron Paul.  His political career is singularly unique.  Although a 10 term Republican representative, he is not a Party Man.  His nickname amongst his comrades is "Dr. No" -- a reference to his still-active obstetrics practice (he's delivered over 4000 babies) combined with his unflinching willingness to vote against any bill that does not meet his strict standards for constitutionality.  If you call him a Conservative, think less George Bush and more Barry Goldwater.  It would be more accurate to call him a Libertarian (and in 1988, we did -- officially -- in his only previous presidential bid) because his voting record matches that adjective very well.  His own party has no love for him -- in the '90s the party gerrymandered his district to elect a *Democrat* just to get him out of office, but no Democrat would dare face him.

As pure a fiscal conservative as was ever cast, non-interventionist in his foreign policy to the point that his opponents pose him as "isolationist", yet an ardent opponent of the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, and the only Republican to vote against war against Iraq in 2002.  In the 2nd Republican debate, he sent Rudolph Giuliani into an apoplectic fit for stating that the 9/11 attacks were the result of 50 years of interventionist and imperialist foreign policy in the middle east, the Iraq War being only the latest insult.  The statement so incensed the rest of the Republican Party that some aparatchiks actually wanted to ban him from future debates (which in itself is quite telling about the Republicans in general and neo-cons specifically).  They backpedaled after they realized just how bad they were making themselves look.

He ardently supports limited government, privacy, free speech, free association, free trade, property rights, and gun rights.  He opposes eminent domain, warrantless searches, the anti-flag burning amendment, the national ID card, and secret wiretapping of Americans.  He supports a defensive military, preferring to conquer the world with trade and ideas instead of building an empire, but opposes the UN and the WTO.  He opposes centralization of government power, for whatever reason.  On all of these things, I'm solidly with him.

He's not huge on the separation of church and state, but not because he's a Christian zealot, but rather because he views suppressing all religious expression in public life to be contrary to free speech, expression, and religion. 

His pro-life stance is based on his career as an obstetrician, and although he personally opposes abortion, he has voted against many anti-abortion bills that would curtail other liberties, such as interstate travel of minors to states that permit abortions, and he opposes the death penalty (unusual among Republicans and downright rare among Protestants).  He may oppose federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but he also opposes the Federal government's attempts to stop states from legalizing assisted suicide.  He opposes Roe v. Wade on the basis that it's bad constitutional politics, and that it's a states' rights issue, not because he seeks to ban abortions nationwide on a religious basis.  He has written, in fact, that "while Roe v Wade is invalid, a Federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."  He writes frequently and eloquently from the pro-life perspective, but never proposes to use Federal power to impose it on the country.  While I would prefer a pro-choice presidential candidate, at least he doesn't seem bent on forcing his beliefs on the country.

Every election cycle, I vote Libertarian, because that is where my political beliefs dwell.  I don't see it as throwing away my vote, but as voting my conscience.  Ron Paul gives me, for perhaps one brief flicker of a moment, a chance to cast a ballot for someone with a chance of winning, however remote.  I don't think he could possibly get the Republican nomination, because the neo-con imperialist hawks and the lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christians have a shared stranglehold on the party, but I'll enjoy the Ron Paul spectacle while it lasts.

Warriors for Ignorance

It's very interesting to see the drama playing out over LiveJournal's hamfisted handling of their mass deletion of blogs and communities this week. It's always curious when usually well-meaning Internet companies get played by extremist elements. The one "activist group" that is cited in C|Net's coverage of the debacle, is Warriors for Innocence. You would think, as I did, that this group is a watchdog group by concerned people about the real scourge of pedophilia, a condition that truly mentally disturbed people of our society are afflicted with.

But if you look more closely, you find that this organization is, in fact, not an organization at all, and by the writings of their principals, isn't really even all that concerned about pedophilia. What really gets their ire up, apparently, is homosexuality. You would think that a company as savvy as Six Apart (LiveJournal's parent company) would have done its due diligence before taking an action that was totally unnecessary from a legal standpoint and had huge potential to harm their company under the best circumstances. But C|Net had no trouble turning up this tidbit:

"A representative from the group (Warriors for Innocence), who gave her name only as "Sues," said in an e-mail Thursday that "we did not knowingly report any 'fandom' communities or role-playing journals." In posts to her personal blog, Sues describes herself as an ardent conservative who views homosexuality as "sick" and a "twisted agenda" and lumps gays and lesbians into the same category as pedophiles and rapists.

That last part is particularly telling, since many of the purged communities had little, if anything, to do with pedophilia, though did contain references to homosexual practices.  If "Sues" equates homosexuality with pedophilia, it's not surprising they would not shed many tears over missing their supposed target.   "Sues"'s first statement is also disingenuous: One need not lodge complaints about specific blogs, they simply must structure their complaint in such a manner as to ensure they were caught up in the purge.  It also appears that, far from being "a representative of the groups", "Sues" is in fact the principal of the organization, which is made up of no more than a few individuals who apparently share this extreme bigotry against people whose sexual orientation differs from the norm.  There is also apparently evidence linking Warriors for Innocence to the Dominionist movement.

This whole event seems to reinforce my view of extremist Christians, who consider sexual orientation to be equivalent with violence against children and women, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  That view is that these people, who call themselves Christians but are in fact truly evil, will lie to people, and harm bystanders, in their headlong rush to power over us.  I would propose that companies such as Six Apart take greater care before heeding the advice of seemingly well-meaning "activists".

To All Christians Waving Their Belief in My Face

[Originally posted on 1/8/2007]

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This, then, is how you should pray:

'Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

Forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from the evil one.'

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Matthew 6:1-8

Funny that a "pagan" has to remind you all of this.

Prove to Me Your Lack of Faith

Got wrapped up in a tangent on one of my previous articles.

I've always been fascinated by Christian scientists (people who are Christians who are trained to be scientists, not the Christian denomination founded by Mary Baker Eddy) who feel compelled to "prove" the historical factualness of events in the Bible. I suppose the logic goes, "this happened, because the Bible says so, but no one believes it because they doubt the Bible, therefore if I can find objective proof that this occurred, people will have no choice but to accept Jesus Christ and the country will become a Christian nation."

These people are misguided, and miss a fundamental point of Christianity, which is Faith. By attempting to scientifically prove that things in the Bible occurred, they are in fact demonstrating their lack of faith in God. Usually these poor louts are folks who have been brainwashed into believing that the Bible is literally true.

In order for the Bible to be literally true, one must ignore (a) its source, which is written in Aramaic, Greek, etc., and thus suspect in translations, and (b) most established scientific knowledge. Bible Literalism, then, plays to those in our society who are the least educated.

So "scientists" who attempt to, for example, find Noah's Ark, or dedicate their lives to Intelligent Design, are doing nothing more than proving they have no faith in God. Which is exactly what their religion tells them is the worst thing they can do.

In addition, they are guilty of the Deadly Sin of Pride, since they feel so certain that they are Right and Correct that their beliefs are the One True Religion that they generally consider themselves to be smarter and -- well, just overall "better" than the rest of us -- that they must expend resources to demonstrate to us just how Right and Correct they are. We will see this, and therefore their particular brand of The Light, and then cave to all of their political demands.

End result: Christian scientists are going to Hell, for God will judge them and punish them for their Pride and lack of faith in Him.

I'm gonna love seeing how a Christian responds to this argument. :-)

Use Your Right Hand or I'll Beat the Shit Out of You

From time to time, for reasons that are vague and probably just the product of a mind naturally prone to wandering, I wonder about the whole argument about homosexuality and heterosexuality, and how we get to become one or the other. If we were to find an answer to that question, it would have profound consequences on our world.


It is one of the issues at the crux of a problem that psychology has been wrestling with for decades, that of the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument. The Nature argument says that we are a product of our genes and biology. All behavior is a consequence of the construction of our bodies. The Nurture argument says that we are born tabula rasa (or as Rush Limbaugh would put it, little skulls full of mush) and we are taught to be everything we are. Without experience, we are no better than animals.

Of course, every psychologist worth their diplomas will admit that it's not an either/or question. We are a subtle, exquisite blend of our genes and our experiences. A third argument suggests that we are a perfect blend or balance of both. Our behavior is equal parts Nature and Nurture, that a traumatic event can strongly influence our subsequent behavior, even if our genetics lean against it, but such an event cannot ultimately make us go totally against our nature.

Some traits of ours are more Nature than Nurture, and others are vice versa. The third argument is just as unreasonable as the first two because, as Carl Sagan once said, "real life is lumpy".

When these ideas collide with axioms from other sources, we have the makings for a fiercely combustible situation. No topic tests this more severely than sexuality. We can see examples where learned behavior goes to an extreme to counteract natural tendencies. In Islam, the Koran teaches that women are responsible for inflaming the sexual passions of men, and therefore must be isolated in society and covered up so that men can lead with a clear head. Women and men are taught this, and accept it for the most part, in a large part of the Muslim world. Part of the beliefs of Western decadence comes from the fact that our women aren't forced to do that. In Western society, of course, we view this belief as ludicrous. Men are responsible for tempering their own passions, and women aren't obliged to hide themselves just because men aren't strong enough to deal with it. The flip side of the Muslim view of women is that Muslim men are so weak-willed that only by arranging their entire society to essentially enslave or imprison half their population can they deal with their lives without becoming uncontrollable sexual ogres.

Our challenge in the Western world, especially the United States, has to do with homosexuality. Here again, Nature and Nurture collide head on. Ask any devout, or at least conservative, Christian about homosexuality, and they will tell you that it is evil and disgusting, a violation of the sanctity of God. Christians are burning up non-trivial amounts of money to counter efforts to allow gay people to marry, because it's an attack on marriage. *How* this is an attack on marriage they're never quite clear about except that letting gay people do anything is apparently an attack on something.

Why do we expend such effort? Because Christianity dictates that it is wrong, and it is unacceptable to them for society to tolerate it. It's not just that they object to society saying it's not wrong, but they object to society not saying it's wrong. In other words, silence on the topic isn't enough. To be a society they're willing to participate in, the law must actively work against homosexuality.

They do attempt to trot out any number of "societal ills" to justify this bigotry -- including that by accepting it we're telling our children that homosexuality is okay. This is a pure Nurture argument. The argument goes something like this: In order to be gay, you have to choose to do so. You have to choose actions that are despicable to society, and therefore you must be evil if you would actually *want* to do that. And since people don't like to be alone, they have to "recruit" new gay people, since nobody would ever naturally be gay.

There's just one problem with this argument. It's been proven that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. How can this be?!? After all, how would gay people pass on their gay genes? It makes no logical sense. Well see, that's where the influence of nurture comes along. For centuries, gay people repressed their preference. They married. They had children. They passed along the genetic tendency for homosexuality. Oh, and they had gay affairs when they thought it was safe. Only in rare moments in world history has homosexuality been considered not unacceptable -- ancient Greece, imperial Rome, occasional enlightened enclaves of Renaissance and Industrial Europe, and in some Modern American and European communities. Famous people in history have turned out to be gay -- some secretly, a precious few out. I personally have heard gay people discuss over and over and over again, that they did not choose to be gay. They simply were. The only decision was in whether to do something about it or not.

Sexual impulses are stronger than we give them credit for. Throughout history, gay men have fled to the Catholic priesthood in the hopes of escaping their sexuality. In modern times we are seeing how effective that has been. A boy who is straight and is molested by a gay man may be emotionally damaged by the encounter, but will it make the child gay? It is unlikely, anymore than a girl who is molested by a straight man becomes straight from the experience. In fact, an argument could be made that it would have the opposite effect, if it in fact could have an effect on sexuality at all. A young gay man will no sooner become straight by being bedded by a perfect female specimen than a young straight man will become gay by the ministrations of a skilled gay lover. There's basic nature at work here.

How can homosexuality persist when, in theory, it works against procreation? First it helps to state the obvious, that humans have more uses for sexuality than reproduction. It's not common in the animal world, but there are a handful of species that use sex for social purposes. Actually, they tend to be the most intelligent: chimpanzees and dolphins have both been observed using sex as part of socialization and not a response to a reproductive instinct. But since sexuality is viewed overwhelmingly in our religious belief systems as an animalistic, and therefore not of God, and since Judeo-Christian belief claims we are made in God's image, sexuality is viewed, at best, as a necessary evil, and at worst, a surrender to animal behavior and thus estrangement from God. It's primarily for this reason that there are celibate religious orders, especially in Christianity. (quick note: Yes, there are celibate Buddhists but they tend to be celibate for totally different and unrelated reasons.) But the discovery of chimps and dolphins getting it on just to say "I'm sorry" (apparently humans didn't invent the "sympathy fuck") just blew the basis for that belief into smithereens.

What about arguing it from the other way, that homosexuality is not normal? We tend to use the word "normal" in an abstract sense rather than a literal one. We equate "normal" with "typical". Homosexuality persists in the human population at a rate of somewhere in the span of 2 to 10 percent, depending on how we define "homosexuality", so the numbers alone say that homosexuality is atypical. But there are all sorts of atypical traits, from immense IQ to athletic ability to penis size, to which we attribute high value. We attribute high IQ to high achievement, which we value. We attribute high athletic ability to achievement (in modern times) or military might (in ancient ones), which we value. We have mixed feelings about penis size, since it's sexual, but since every straight male seems to equate penis size with the ability to provide pleasure to a woman (direct evidence from women to the contrary), we value it. Nobody ever gets penis reduction surgery, at least that I've ever heard.

Psychologist have a somewhat different view of "normal", or at least of "abnormal". A trait is undesirable if it interferes with a person's effective execution of life. We characterize "the blues" as normal but clinical depression as abnormal by this definition. Is homosexuality abnormal? Up until the 1950's, the psychological and psychiatric community thought it was. One of the more controversial decisions they made was to rescind that judgment. Why? Because homosexuality in fact did not interfere with a person's life in and of itself, though other people's behaviors in response to it could.

So if homosexuality occurs naturally in humans, and doesn't directly interfere with a person's existence, it can't be "abnormal" per se. And if it's a small portion of the population, it can't be "normal" by that definition. So where does that leave us? Is there something in our human condition that can be said to occupy a similar position, something that is psychologically normal, statistically atypical, and tends to not be learned? As a matter of fact we do.

People have also been left-handed for millienia. The origin of hand preference in humanity, and its impact on society, is the closest analogy we have, and once straight people get past their incredulous initial reaction, I think you'll see it makes perfect sense. We have only recently decided to not view left-handedness as abnormal, though in the past it was also considered "evil" and parents went to great effort to try to make their children right-handed. Left-handed people can operate in a right-handed mode for short periods of time, but once given the chance, will go back to being left-handed with nary a thought. Nobody decides to be left-handed. I know this because when I was a kid, I resolved to be left-handed. I tried for weeks. It simply didn't work. True, left-handed people have a greater tendency toward ambidexterity, but only because it's a right-handed world, and some right-hand skill is necessary to get by from time to time. Measure this against the fairly pitiful performance right-handed people display when presented with the rare left-hand-only situation.

So why are there no nationwide movements against left-handedness? Why no state laws banning left-handed paraphernalia? No religious movements against the evil influence of left-handed people? Oh sure, there are vestiges of such prejudice -- most device are still arranged for righties, and we have expressions like "left-handed compliment". (Neo-Pagans refer to Satanism sometimes as the "left-handed path".) Because being left-handed is not related to sexuality. Well maybe in the case of masturbation, but I'm pretty sure that's not what we mean.

We would not tolerate someone being beaten to death for picking up a bottle with the wrong hand, and yet there are people out there who, if not outwardly then in secret corners of their mind, think that gay people who get the snot kicked out of them that they somehow had it coming. Perhaps by seeing gay people as left-handed in a different sense, maybe the world can become just a little less vicious.