45 responses so far ↓

• 1 Joel McDonald // Nov 5, 2008 at 8:27 am

  I don’t know. Racism isn’t as current a threat as homosexuality is in the eyes of many right now. The upside is that there is likely to be a lot of outrage, possibility leading to a push to the Supreme Court, possibility making this a serious national issue.

• 2 Green Oasis » A Season of Hope // Nov 5, 2008 at 8:57 am

  […] seems that many of us are upset at the majority of California voters harshing the collective buzz over the Obama victory. Today is bittersweet… Obama got elected but it looks as though […]

• 3 Tammy Takahashi // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:04 am

  The social line of “morality” moves slowly and reluctantly. The election of a black president took generations to achieve. The fight for gay rights has just started. Give it time, it will happen.

• 4 Joel McDonald // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Tammy is right about the social line. The perception of what is acceptable, moral, right, etc. is very slow to move. However, we must do all we can to prevent the morals of the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority.

  Separate but equal does not work. It is either justice for all, or justice for none. It is either education for all, or for none. It is either marriage for all, or for none. This issue has been tried before. Just replace skin color and public education with gender and marriage.

• 5 Elaine // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:43 am

  I think it all has to do with the Yes on 8 people lying their asses off and bringing issues that people really do worry about but that didn’t have anything to do with same-sex marriage into the mix.

  Monday night there were Yes on 8 supporters out at the busiest intersection in my town with signs tying the proposition to things like academic freedom.

  Its going to be a long road, but this will go to court again, and I really believe that separate but equal will be ruled unconstitutional again, just as it was so many years ago in Brown v. Board of Education. I know that isn’t any comfort to those whose marriages were apparently invalidated by yesterday’s vote, but justice will come eventually.

• 6 catbonny // Nov 5, 2008 at 10:00 am

  Someone this morning told me that slaves were freed in 1865 and that various civil rights laws didn’t pass until 1967 and the gay rights movement didn’t start until the 1970’s so I should give it time….

  But I think this shows that we have a really small learning curve in this country, and I know that’s really mean, but I am kind of upset right now.

  I echo you questions and emotions on the victory/defeat completely.

• 7 Craig // Nov 5, 2008 at 11:40 am

  Honestly, I blame the Mormon church leadership. Without their involvement and their total lack of morality this never would have happened. I can’t even express how furious I am right now.

• 8 Joel McDonald // Nov 5, 2008 at 11:47 am

  I just heard from a friend of mine who works for the the Mormon church managing buildings. She says that there has been vandalism to church grounds in reaction to the passage of Proposition 8. They certainly did place themselves in the line of fire, not that I’m condoning vandalism.

• 9 xJane // Nov 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  dittos to everyone
  • rights for people of color took generations to achieve (and may not yet be achieved, Obama’s win notwithstanding)
  • racism still exists but it’s socially acceptable to be a bigot against gays rather than against people of color
  • this will be in the courts soon—and hopefully the courts will rule that discrimination is still unconstitutional
  • this is a result of lies and money proving an attempt to legislate the morality of the Christian right

• 10 ebrown // Nov 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  Let’s put a pro-Equality proposition on the ballot for the next election. The homophobe churches can then put more money into its defeat. Then we’ll do it again. Starve the beast.

• 11 Chandelle // Nov 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  I was totally crushed by the passing of Prop. 8. I don’t really know what else to say about it. I was ambivalent on Obama throughout the campaign but surprised myself by how much I wanted him to win by the end and how happy I am that he has.

• 12 Nathan // Nov 5, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  Elaine: “tying the proposition to things like academic freedom.” Out of curiosity, exactly what did the sign say?

  All: I think it is interesting that a lot of people cringe when someone criticizes their behavior for being ‘immoral’, but then turns around and calls for ‘justice’. Don’t the ‘demands of justice’ balance on a fulcrum that is just as subjective as ‘morality’?

  Craig: “I blame the Mormon church leadership. Without their… total lack of morality this never would have happened.”

  I don’t think that morality is the word you should use here–for the same reason that so many liberals veto the conservative right’s positions based on morality.

  Maybe “(blind) equality” would be better. But, then any real religion is necessarily based on INequality. That’s the whole point of religion, to set a standard that prohibits certain behavior which allows for self-discipline and transcendent experience. To have some standard by which to live. The only equality that I can think of that should exist in religion is equality of the WORTH of an individual–not the equality of a diverse actions regardless of their results.

  Joel: “vandalism to church grounds in reaction to the passage of Proposition 8.”

  I think this illegal and extreme reaction reflects the deviant nature of the individuals representing the NO campaign. It calls into question the way that deviance and selfishness has taken control of their thought process.

• 13 Craig // Nov 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm

  No, I am quite sure that I quite carefully and purposefully chose the word “morality”. What they did was immoral, it was evil. It may have been according to some twisted version of Mormon morality, but it was against secular, societal morality, just as discrimination against blacks for centuries was immoral, even though many churches (including the Mormons) supported it. I don’t give a damn what they preach to their own members, but they’ve done something inexcusable and atrocious in forcing others to abide by their religious views. They’ve struck a blow against freedom, and the mindset they have encouraged is what causes violence and hate crimes.

  And this isn’t the best place to be calling those who were supporting equality “deviant”. It may be an illegal action, but is it really so extreme? I don’t condone it, but I understand it, and sympathise with those whose lives were ripped out from under them even more than mine by a bigoted majority who listened to the lies and fear-mongering of an even more bigoted minority.

• 14 Nathan // Nov 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  Of course you do.

• 15 Craig // Nov 5, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  Yep, I do. I’m not sure what exactly I do, but I do.

• 16 Rich // Nov 5, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  Too happy about Obama to sweat the setback on 8 (this isn’t over by any stretch); look how far we’ve come.

  “Rosa sat so Martin could walk,
  Martin walked so Obama could run,
  Obama ran so our children could fly…”

• 17 angryyoungwoman // Nov 6, 2008 at 2:32 am

  I am torn apart by the prop 8 passage. I also am being attacked by angry mormons (on this blog) for saying that I thought the anti-prop8 “home invasion” ad that has “mormon missionaries” going to a lesbian couples home and tearing up their marriage certificate was just fine (if the church attacks us, can’t we attack them?) and that the church shouldn’t be basically making laws for nonmembers as well as members. They’re pretty excited to have a real live homosexual heathen to insult.

  (cross my fingers and hope my tags worked).

• 18 xJane // Nov 6, 2008 at 9:34 am

  Nathan @12 re: Justice/Morality—this question of legislating morality is not a new one, however, the questions soon become “whose morality do we legislate?” and “how do we choose?”.

  Why not the morality of your local PETA group, who would make owning pets (not to mention eating meat and wearing fur/leather) illegal. We reject this out of hand because it is not right to force one group’s morality upon another group. This is why people get up in arms when people who think they’re the dominant group (Christians) try to legislate their morality (by Prop 8, Prop 4, or I-1000). Justice ≠ morality. Law ≠ morality. Nor should it.

  Craig @15: I think I might, too. Not sure what, but I figured I’d show solidarity.

  I’d like to reiterate that I’m kinda glad that this passed, because (just like Prop 4) defeating it this year means nothing—it’ll be back next year; and the year after, until one side wears out. This way, it can go to the courts, who will hopefully hold that discrimination is wrong and put this issue to bed once and for all. As I said above, justice ≠ morality, justice = justice. And in this matter, equality must = justice.

• 19 Elaine // Nov 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  @ Nathan #12: Sorry that I can’t recall the exact wording on the sign. I was in the car and couldn’t write it down.

  I do recall that the words “academic freedom” were explicitly there and not implied, and that the gist was something like that if Prop. 8 failed, academic freedom would be violated. I assume they were referring to the rhetoric which claimed that schools would be forced to teach about same-sex marriages if the proposition did not pass.

• 20 Marsha // Nov 6, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  I believe the signs said “Protect Parental Rights.” I was out there with a “No on 8″ sign and discussed the concept of parental rights with the “yes” advocates (who repeatedly said unkind things about the passionate young people on the other side). They told me that gay marriage would have to be taught in the local schools. But after putting two daughters through public schools (26 years total), I realized they were never even taught that marriage was between a man and a woman, even in their high school health class. So there would be no need to incorporate anything about gay marriage in public education. It was a way to rile people into believing that the failure of this prop would cause families to lose parental rights. The denial of constitutional rights (14th Amendment) by
  the passage of this proposition is a scary thing. If the rights of a minority can be swiped by a mere majority of voters, are anybody’s rights safe?

• 21 Elaine // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:50 am

  Yes, I saw the “Protect Parental Rights” signs, as well.

  I wonder, though, do parents really have a right to teach their children things that demonize a whole group of people and then to prevent them from hearing other points of view on the issue?

  I mean, even if schools did have to teach same-sex as well as “traditional” marriage, that would not stop the parents from telling their kids whatever they want to about marriage, or any other subject.

  I guess my original question would be better phrased: Do parents have a right to be the only source of information to their children on controversial issues?

  I would say no, but I wonder what you all think about it.

• 22 Marsha // Nov 10, 2008 at 9:13 am

  Sadly, parents do have the right to teach their children whatever they wish to teach them. They can teach them to hate a certain country, people, race, religion, sexual preference. They can teach them to believe in Santa Clause and mock Muslims and Mormons. They can teach them that spewing hat is OK.

  But what they can not do is insist that our public institutions promote their personal agendas. When creationists want their “facts” taught alongside evolution and science (my personal belief system), that’s where we need to draw the line. We bemoan other cultures where hate is part of the curriculum, like Wahhabist schools in Muslim countries, yet we step aside when such fundamentalist actions sully our laws.

  I would love for all children to receive a public education, where tolerance can be taught. A public education that is excellent and forward thinking, that prepares our children for the future as world citizens not math and science deficient zenophobic dolts.

• 23 wren // Nov 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

  Beyond joyful over Obama getting elected. Incredibly sorrowful over the conversations I have had with friends who supported prop 8. I tried to understand and see it from their perspective but I never could. I never could because with these friends, their support is rooted in religion and I can no longer rationalize respect for religion simply for religion’s sake. It’s not a firm foundation.

• 24 wren // Nov 10, 2008 at 10:37 am

  By the way, Rich (#16), check out this story Prop 8 revisited from Weekend America. It’s about 8 minutes long. Towards the end, a prop 8 supporter says he doesn’t like being called a bigot and compares himself to Rosa Parks. Seriously.

• 25 wren // Nov 11, 2008 at 6:29 am

  If the prop 8 supporters really want to do what their cause claimed for marriage, I think this should be their next prop Protect marriage & children, prohibit hetero divorce.

• 26 Jonathan // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:43 am

  Please don’t eat me alive - I’m mostly here to share info and then bring up a larger issue and see what everyone thinks…

  Most of the Christians I talk to about this issue seem to be OK with same-sex marriage (in the sense that they want people to be free from being forced to live Christian values), but are worried about a deeper issue - the separation of Church and State and religious freedom.

  Unfortunately, there is this conflict of interest when it comes to religious institutions being 501(c)(3). In order for them to retain their tax-exempt status and be a non-profit organization, they need follow the rules of any tax-exempt organization…

  So if same-sex marriage becomes legal (and I agree that it one day will be), it’s not too hard to see that civil lawsuits will arise when same-sex couples want to get married on Church-owned desirable property (buildings, lands, or otherwise). The government will have to decide to revoke / not revoke an organization’s status if they fail to comply to non-discrimination regulations. Government regulations are now anti-Christian, so we have a conflict of interest.

  My Christian contacts may be a bit paranoid on that one, but what about this: it’s also not too hard to take things a step forward to see that any Christian books/radio programs might be likewise labeled as hate speech and literature and thus banned because they happen to be against homosexuality.

  What we are seeing on a personal level are same sex families being ripped apart, and this is very painful. But what you are seeing on a larger scale is a political war between dominant opposing worldviews. To loose this battle is severe - it means that you will loose your freedom to practice /talk about / write about /teach your kids about your worldview and determine who you are allowed to marry. If extremists are allowed power, the worldview with the political power will try to legislate the other out of existence.

  Mixing wordviews with politics sucks. I don’t know if the Christians I hear from are just paranoid or not. I guess I’m just hoping that whoever is in power from whichever worldview camp are moderate and not extremist. I would absolutely hate to see my Christian values forced down someone’s throat. Christianity was never meant to be political. I would also hate it if I was forced to leave the country because I wrote, for example, that adultery is morally wrong and hurts people.

  I personally don’t think eradicating a worldview by legislation or by darker means in a society is the answer to making a better one. A society will always have conflicting worldviews (even if they are suppressed), but what is most important is to work together anyway to make this a better country together and stop trying to destroy each other. Just because you don’t like what someone with another worldview believes doesn’t mean you should create laws to make their lives a living hell.

  I’m curious what you guys think about this worldview and politics thing. I think we all agree that the personal level of being stripped of your marriage certificate is very bad.

  But what about wordview-equality and freedom? Do you believe your wordview so strongly that you would like to legislate the opposite one out of existence and remove the concept of freedom to practice one’s worldview? There’s a lot here to discuss - such as the definition of “practice”…

• 27 wren // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:36 am

  Hi, Johnathan. I think you bring you some interesting points.

  Most Christians I know are not okay with gay marriage. They’re mostly okay with gay civil unions but do not want to share the word marriage with gays and lesbians.

  Someone correct me if I’m wrong but the CA Supreme Court ruling specifically allows churches to discriminate as they wish as far as whom they marry.

  I would say your friends are paranoid if they think there’s serious desire by gays & lesbians to be married on the property of people who don’t approve of them. Straight marriages are legal today and my parents were denied getting married in a Catholic church because my mother had been previously divorced. They didn’t fight it. They got married somewhere else.

  I’d say we’re all worried about separation of church and state and religious freedom. Right now, a lot of folks would say the religious enjoy prominance in govt, particularly Judeo/Christian prominance on the walls of our govt buildings, in our pledge of allegiance, and on our money. As a former Christian, I would be offended to hear of lawsuits to take God out of this or that. As someone who’s expanded her world view now, I can see the other side. I get the fear of Christians but I see it now as more like an issue where religion is being pushed to where it should have been to begin with - a private practice.

  I think the key here is that people are allowed to believe as they wish but when the practice of their beliefs infringe on others’ rights, that’s a problem. Different world views exist and always will. However, there has to be a baseline in the greater world outside our doors where we co-exist.

• 28 xJane // Nov 11, 2008 at 9:06 am

  You’re absolutely correct, Jonathan, that religious institutions who allow their facilities to be used by the public could be sued (rightly) for not allowing these facilities to be used by any group (white supremacists, gay weddings, pro-choice ralliers) when they are used by similar groups who follow their religious philosophies (Jump Rope for Heart, in-religion weddings, pro-life ralliers). This is the case now. The easy solution to avoid these kinds of suits is to no longer offer these facilities to the public. Indeed, some institutions are already doing this. And, this is the case for religious and non-religious facilities-available-for-use-by-the-public (like botanical gardens, hotel ballrooms, and other places chosen for weddings, conventions, and the like).

  The kinds of suits that would not be allowed are those having to do with religion. It is simply not possible that a gay couple who wanted to get married in the Catholic church by a Catholic priest would be able to sue the Catholic church (either the Catholic Church or the specific church in question) to allow them to get married “in the Church”. They could only sue to be allowed to have their reception in the church’s public reception space. The courts routinely refuse to get involved in these matters and churches regularly refuse to marry people based upon their own (religious) criteria. My sister was told she could not be married in the Church because she had never been confirmed. She got confirmed and got married in the Church. I would not have been able to get married in the Church (if I wanted to) because my husband is not Catholic and because I am not a practicing Catholic (although that last one is easy to fake).

  Religious groups who raise this issue drive me crazy because it seems clear to me that they simply don’t understand the kinds of lawsuits that might result, the current state of separation of church & state, or are purposely raising a red herring to change the focus of the issue.

  The issue is this: legislation of conservative morality by extremist religious groups.

  When the issue gets turned around: legislation of liberal morality onto disenfranchised religious enclaves, I have to laugh. No one is saying that gay marriage should be legislated. We’re saying it’s already legal because our Constitution says there can be no discrimination based upon sex. There are some areas (not California) where liberals are trying to “legislate their morality”. So let’s go to these not-California places:

  Allowing gay marriage, or legislating homosexual/gay-sympathizing morality, harms religious institutions not at all (as noted above). This is a disenfranchised group of society who deserve better than to have their rights voted upon by the majority. Laws must protect those who cannot protect themselves or it is a dictatorship. It is the job of all democracy-loving people to protect the downtrodden. Whether that means women, children, gays, or even fringe religious groups—the majority sometimes needs to give up their place of privilege for the benefit of society as a whole. This is what the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws did—they took from the powerful majority a small amount of rights that were based in hatred (protection of the purity of white blood) and in doing so allowed a minority to be recognized as full members of society.

  Similarly, acknowledgement that gay marriage is allowed by our constitution (or legislating it into other constitutions), takes from the powerful majority a small privilege (the stranglehold of their morality on our society) and in doing so gives a minority a great privilege (again, recognition that they are whole members of our society).

• 29 Jonathan // Nov 11, 2008 at 9:15 am

  Awesome Wren!
  Sounds like you and I represent the moderates on both sides. If we were both in office, we would work great together! I’m all for working out a baseline (there is a big baseline!) and removing more religious stuff from the gov.

  I’m wondering if we, who want to work together for a baseline, are part of a minority, and in reality there is a trend moving towards extremism in worldview politics. Do you see that?

  I’m wondering if this may be something to worry about… One dominant worldview is under threat (Judeo-Christianity) and may wish to start infringing on civil rights to retain its power. I am passionately against this. Another worldview (humanist) is contending for power and may wish to also infringe on civil rights as a backlash (i.e. Sam Harris and Co.). Since whoever is in power gets to define what civil rights are legally, we have a problem when it comes to extremists.

  Right now, extremists are being relatively checked on both sides, but that may not always be the case.

  I guess I’m trying to understand if folks who feel like Harris or their counterpart in Judeo-Christian politics (and not like you and I) will use things like prop 8 to their own political advantage to gain more power and use it to chip away the civil rights of the members of the opposing worldview. Political power breeds moral corruption regardless of one’s worldview.

• 30 Craig // Nov 11, 2008 at 10:49 am

  What evidence have you got that humanists would wish to infringe on civil rights at all, let alone as a back lash to religion?

  I don’t think that humanism is in any way analogous to extreme Judaeo-Christian religious worldview which wishes to force it’s morality on America.

  What exactly is it you think Sam Harris desires? Why do you think he has any desire to expand his civil rights at the expense of yours, and more importantly why do you think that Sam Harris represents or speaks for all of humanism?

  Political power breeds moral corruption regardless of one’s worldview.

  I wholly disagree, and would ask you for evidence before you go about slandering secular humanism and even Sam Harris (not that I’m saying I agree with everything he writes/says).

  Anyway, the baseline that (I believe) Wren is talking about is simply universal equal human rights. Every single human possess the same rights, and unless someone infringes significantly on someone else’s free exercise of rights, they’ve got the right to their free exercise.

  The natural conclusion of this is the legalisation of gay marriage, and absolute equality of the individuals in the GLBT community to those in privileged straight society, the legalisation (or non hindrance) of polyamoury, of marijuana, elective euthanasia, just to name a few things that need to no longer be illegal or legislated against (as these are not crimes but “sins”, and we need to stop legislating religious morality).

  I think it is inevitable that certain religious privileges are going to be curtailed, but only because religion has overstepped its bounds in this country and is constantly violating individual’s rights, and is not being held accountable. The rights however of an individual to his/her beliefs will not be changed. Religious institutions themselves don’t have near as many rights as we might think, as it is the individual in this country that has the most expansive and liberal rights, and rightly so.

• 31 Jonathan // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:35 am

  Craig, I think we agree…

  I think non-baseline stuff that has religious sources should be removed from government law.

  I am glad that you don’t see Sam Harris as the spokesperson for the humanist worldview. I was assuming he was not, but probably is the spokesperson for the extremest position. I’ve read End of Faith and his reasoning, that’s why I feel comfortable saying that. I actually liked some of the stuff he said, but like you, didn’t agree with some other stuff. I could quote the stuff he did say that leads me to say what I did about him.

  But you don’t think political power corrupts? You don’t think power goes to people’s heads and makes them make wrong moral choices? I guess I would disagree there. I think it does, no matter who you are or what you believe.

  With my post, I’m just bringing up the dangers of politics and worldviews with extremists in power, which is why this post came up in the first place.

  I think we’re only disagreeing on one point.

  Actually, what I’m interested in is your thoughts on what religious privileges need to be removed… I think that’s what I was hoping to understand from a different perspective when I was referring to “religious practices.”

  I know that this (prop.8) this is a volitile issue, but please understand I am using it as a springboard to examine a larger issue - and trying just to understand from your point of view that issue- and putting forth a thought that mixing worldviews and politics can be dangerous when people who are extreme and not moderate are running the ship.

• 32 Craig // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:54 am

  Yeah, he is most definitely not the spokesmodel for Humanism. He is more extreme than I would be, certainly.

  But you don’t think political power corrupts? You don’t think power goes to people’s heads and makes them make wrong moral choices? I guess I would disagree there. I think it does, no matter who you are or what you believe.

  I think it can and very often does, but doesn’t universally.

  Some of the religious privileges that I think need to be removed are the existance of any kind of refrence to God in laws, in courts, in Congress, on money, etc. I also think that churches should not be a special class of tax exempt institution, but should have to obey exactly the same strictures and rules that non-religious non-profit organisations have to.

  Basically, we need to stop giving religion preferential treatment of any kind.

• 33 Craig // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

  Oh, and I fully agree that co-operation between moderate secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, deists and theists is the best for our society, though I believe that certain liberal philosophies are superior (such as universal human rights, abolishing the death penalty, freedom of reproductive choice, etc.)

• 34 xJane // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  I’m seeing a move toward extremist politics domestically but not necessarily on a world-wide basis. Yes, there are obvious examples of extremist politics on the world stage but I don’t see a trend indicating their increase.

  I’d have to agree that Sam Harris is in no way a moderate humanist (I’d call him an extremist atheist) and I’m with you that extremism in general is something that we need to guard against. However, one of the major things about extremism is an inability to compromise; and I believe there are certain things that cannot be compromised (like human rights, including bodily autonomy and marriage). Other issues I feel very strongly about (the environment, international issues) are open to compromise—which is different from “expendable”, which I think domestic politics likes to substitute to attack someone. (”His positions on X are expendable.” rather than “She is willing to compromise on X.”)

• 35 Jonathan // Nov 12, 2008 at 7:04 am

  This just seems very discouraging to me - very discouraging actually. I’m having a hard time expressing why. It seems like this is a topic that both worldview groups could work together on in government and come out with a good solution. Instead, it seems like it is one that will tear us further apart. I think same-sex marriage will eventually happen, but what I’m afraid of is that when it does, and in all the moments between now and then, the rift between the secular humanist and the judeo-christian conservative will widen, both in a personal sphere and in the political one. As the rift widens, the extremist camps start to look pretty tempting to indulge in because both sides are very angry.

  I don’t want to see this happen- I want to see these two groups working together well and keep the extremists at bay. I hope this is what will happen. I am more convinced that it won’t, and relations will get worse. I think this is why I wrote my first comment.

  Why do I think things are getting worse? I think that by the very presence and popularity of Pat Robertson, Sam Harris as well as others like them are indicators in our culture that the rift is increasing.

• 36 xJane // Nov 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  a fun cartoon that sums up this post:

  

  via. (and apologies to Feministing for linking)

  also, a tear-inducing set of photos that reminds me of waiting in line to vote and of what this election means

• 37 Craig // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm

  Jonathan, I think there’s a major flaw in your logic.

  Religious conservatives are most often conservatives because of their religious beliefs, and they rarely, if ever are amenable to any type of criticism. They take it as an attack on their religion (which it often is), and are naturally unable to consider that their religious assumptions might be false - their views are not just unchallengeable, but are also incapable of co-existing with contradictory beliefs . When you’re religious, your world-view is based on basic assumptions that are untestable, that are not based in reality in any meaningful way, and that actively harm everyone else.

  Whereas those who are more liberal/secular/atheist/etc., often realise the importance of questioning every assumption, and of the subjectivity of experience, but also the importance of reason, science, logic, and evidence. I don’t think that those who oppose religious oppression (like me) are equally likely to gravitate towards extremism as religionists are, because we’ve got not just different ideologies, but different ways of thinking as well. If I am given good reason or evidence for why I am wrong, I will gladly change my position on a given issue. I don’t believe the same can often be said of most of those who adhere to religion. That is their biggest weakness, and the main reason why they fight against universal human rights and equality.

  This is why I don’t think that there is a universal trend towards extremism. I think that in the religious world, the trend is in two directions: towards religious extremism yes, but also towards non-extreme liberal humanism. The religious are splitting between these two, with the extreme getting extremer, and moderate generally choosing between the extreme right and the moderate left.

  The liberal/atheist/secular/humanists are waiting for the moderately religious to catch up. While I think that while all need to work together, there are certain things that simply cannot be compromised (as xJane already said). Universal human rights, the protection of individual civil rights, separation of state and religion, etc., are not something the very religious generally have any desire in supporting (for obvious reasons), but these are all things that are absolutely necessary to have a productive and free society.

  Your comments seem to suggest that both sides have equivalently important arguments, but that just isn’t the case. Those on the moderate to far right oppose things we cannot give up, and so we work to take away their power (which is too often tied in with religion) and/or wait until they are marginalised and ignored as in Europe and Canada. We cannot allow those whose world-views aren’t based in reality, to have equal footing in social policy and law making. To do so would be extremely irresponsible and dangerous. For too long we’ve allowed the religious too much power and too much privilege, and it is destroying out society and our civil rights.

  Personally I think that our society is becoming more secular and even as the religious become more extreme, they also become more marginalised, and less powerful. The overall trend I see is towards moderate secular humanism, similar to Europe and Canada. It may take longer, as we have more strong religionists to deal with, but in the end, I think the secular side will win out.

  Now I’m not saying that we oughtn’t work together, but again, there are some things we just simply cannot and will not compromise on, because some things are right, and others wrong. The reason I think that our views should win out is because our reasoning is based on science, whereas the opposition’s claims are based in religion - claims which are unverifiable, and which our society from its inception decided were not useful or admissible or constitutional in government because of the inherently contradictory, unscientific and marginalising nature of religion.

• 38 EBrown // Nov 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  Just a clarification re suing churches to allow SSM:
  One could not sue a Church to force it to perform any marriage. The US Constitution through the First Amendment would prohibit any such lawsuit. Nor is it likely that a Church could be sued for failing to allow one of its buildings to be used for such purposes unless it had routinely made it available to others without regard to their relationship to the religious institution. I believe it would then come under anti-discriminatory legislation in California, as well as the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
  As for weddings in the Catholic church, depending on the parish, marriages btw. Catholics and non-Catholics are routinely performed in the church so long as the non-Catholic (this includes Protestants, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) agrees that any children will be raised Catholic. The Catholic church has no enforcement mechanisms such as temple recommends (sic) to follow through on that agreement.

• 39 Jonathan // Nov 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  but Craig…
  - I am most amendable to criticism. Why else would I be here? I’m not here to debate, I’m here to understand. Why do I read Sam Harris? So I can hate him? No, so I can understand why he thinks religion is dangerous. He has good points that I can take away and ponder.

  - I am quite capable of co-existing with people who hold opposite beliefs. What would I be doing on this website if I couldn’t stand opposing viewpoints? I welcome them - ideas and concepts are complicated, and its good to see them from different perspectives.

  - I am quite interested in human rights, and this entire discussion on SSM does not in the least threaten my beliefs. I understand that people who are not religious should not be forced to follow religious beliefs, and believe that they have decent reasons for not doing so. We need to make laws that make sense in a society with different worldviews.

  - If I were to ever criticize you, I would of course use your worldview as the basis for criticism, since that is your grounding for logic. You do realize the your grounding for logic is a subset of my own.

  So with what I just said, what would stop you and I from working together towards a common baseline for law in this country?

  The most important point is this: I’m nobody special. If I’m this way, there must be thousands more people like me that are 10 times better. You say that there are a lot of moderate secular humanists. Looks like there is potential for keeping the peace and working together.

  I’m not here to debate which worldview is more susceptible to extremism. You could even make a good argument that the religious are more susceptible, but as you might already know, I’m not a fan of organized religion anyway, so I’m not interested in defending them. All I’m saying is that there are undeniably extremists on both sides, and it is a growing phenomena. And that discourages me.

  I’m beginning to feel guilty continuing this thread (we’re at comment 39 now), although I think it is helpful for me… I hope neither John nor xJane are not getting annoyed with it…

• 40 John // Nov 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  Jonathan, I’m always delighted to see you here–you and Craig are welcome to take this thread to the 100s. You keep me honest and demonstrate the range and complexity that exists among believers, and I hope I’m able to follow your example in striving to avoid dogmatism and stereotyping myself.

  I just wish I had more time to engage this discussion–it’s all I can do to post on occasion…

• 41 Craig // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  To be clear, I wasn’t directing this at you in any way. You obviously don’t fit into the category I was discussing, and for that I give you much credit.

  So with what I just said, what would stop you and I from working together towards a common baseline for law in this country?

  As far as I can tell, nothing. And that is a very good thing.

  I do admit that there does seem to be a growing number of extreme atheists, but I do think they are far less problematic and far, far less numerous than extreme religionists.

  you and Craig are welcome to take this thread to the 100s.

  John, be careful what you wish for

• 42 Jonathan // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  Thanks John! Good to hear from you again! I wish you could post more…

  I actually do have one final point that may be of interest to the secular humanist crowd that relates very strongly to this issue. It is the concept of a theocracy and how Christians like myself view it.

  Many may think that Christians want to turn their nation of residence into one, and anyone who works with a Christian in the lawmaking process may naturally assume that this is their goal. This is not my goal or the goal of anyone like me. This is plain insanity.

  Let me explain. There was only ever one theocracy. It started three thousand years ago and lasted about a millennium. It was never meant to be a model for governments going forward. Jesus made that quite clear by dying and not creating a new political government here on Earth. It had an entirely different purpose which I will not talk about here.

  It is not the goal of the Christian living in this world to create a theocratic nation. It will always fail because it was never the purpose of Christianity. But we as Christians are to simply live right along side of everyone else in whatever secular nation they find themselves in. Of course, we will rock the boat - such as taking a part in ending slavery or fighting against racism or injustice of any kind.

  Christians (like myself) stand for the same things people who care about civil rights do. That is why I continually say that we have a large baseline to work from between ourselves and secular humanists. We have a ton in common with anyone of any worldview that passionately values human life.

  As I said before, I am nobody special - and if I feel this way, there are thousands who do much more than I.

• 43 Craig // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  Jonathan:

  Thanks for explaining your views. You are someone I can support and work with in bettering our society.

• 44 Jonathan // Nov 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

  Thanks Craig! We would work well together! Thank you for the good discussion as well.

• 45 xJane // Nov 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  an awesome pic (that will take over your screen): CHANGE.

Leave a Comment