The Nappy Cat Chronicles

Despite my attitude towards religion, vivid displays of worship move me in an “awe-porn” sort of way. This picture captures Muslims in prayer around the Kaaba in Mecca-a form of worship that appears to be like none other. Despite all of the bad acts mandated by the gods, the pomp and circumstance of the average religious occurrence can be more inspiring than that of the average secular event.

Dazed and confused at the Brunswick County school board meeting in Brunswick County, NC:

“It’s really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism,” county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday’s meeting. “The law says we can’t have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists.”

The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there’s no tangible proof it’s true.

“I wasn’t here 2 million years ago,” Fanti said. “If evolution is so slow, why don’t we see anything evolving now?”

The board allowed Fanti to speak longer than he was allowed, and at the end of his speech he volunteered to teach creationism and received applause from the audience.

When he walked away, school board Chairwoman Shirley Babson took the podium and said another state had tried to teach evolution and creationism together and failed, and that the school system must teach by the law.

“Evolution is taught because that’s what the General Assembly tells us to teach,” Babson said, adding that she doesn’t agree with it, but that students must learn it to graduate.

Now, I’m 100% sure that Joel thinks he’s a nice guy. He runs some sort of nonprofit ministry and it looks like he and his wife have adopted two children and live as pleasantly fruity Christians:

I have been and continue to be a blessed man. God has given me a family that I am thankful for. I have been married nearly 13 years. I have been back in North Carolina since 1997. My focus is living the life that is pleasing to God so that it leads others to Him.

There are a lot of earnest Joels out there who will continuously organize and whine. The Joels are half of why I support the teaching of the creation myth in place of evolution provided the school board approves.

The consequences of teaching creation as science encompass the other half of my support. It’s fun to organize and it’s fun to fight. But, the darkness that follows the expulsion of scientific inquiry is not fun. And, if the residents of these school districts are not brave enough to confront the lies of the Joels, they deserve to suffer under the patriarchy and the emotional and psychological brutality of organized religion.

In a move that will surely be feverishly condemned by the Dominionism sect, the Catholic Church has released the New Community Bible, a bible that is meant to spread religious propaganda throughout India through the subversion of Indian traditions. Jeremy Page covers:

“I am sure this Bible, made in India and for Indians, will bring the word of God closer to millions of our people, not only Christians,” Oswald Gracias, the Archbishop of Bombay, said at a ceremony on the Bible’s release.

Produced by the Society of St Paul, the Bible is the first in this nation of 1.1 billion to be written in simplified English. It features 27 sketches of typical Indian scenes: one shows a family in a slum beneath skyscrapers. Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa also feature in lengthy notes interpreting the text for Indian readers.

The notes even quote Hindu scriptures, such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, to help to explain Christianity to prospective converts. “We wanted to show the parallels between the themes in the Bible and in Indian religions,” Father Tony Charanghat, a spokesman for the Archbishop, said. “We’ve put the sacred text in a local context.”

So, there’s this mini-hoopla occurin’ in the blogosphere regarding blogger, terminal atheist, and biologist P.Z. Meyers and his declaration of war against Catholic communion wafers. This paragraph got him in trouble with the Catholic League and, Bill Donohue, its president:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

I’ve been a reader of P.Z. Meyers for a year or so and I have a blog so I’m in a great position to judge him. P.Z. is a vastly intelligent and competent biologist. And, because he spends a majority of his posting hours picking on the religious and Republican, lunatic fringe, when it comes to the realities of religion and politics, he has the understanding and impulsiveness of a 2-year-old boy. When the two realities intersect, P.Z. loses all reason and accountability.

Not that I’m sympathetic to the Catholic Church. I’ve handled the communion wafer both before and after the transubstantiation is said to have occurred and there is neither a qualitative nor quantitative difference. At the church, there were older altar boys who would steal bags of unconsecrated wafers. This was a pointless endeavor on their part because the wafers contain no ingredient that provides physical sustenance and have no value outside of the church.

Inside of the church, the consecrated communion wafer is considered the most sacred object the can exist at any point in time. It is believed by some Catholics that the wafer literally becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ. Most who claim Catholic affiliation believe that this occurs in abstract terms. To those who believe in a literal transformation, obtaining and maintaining the privilege to ingest the wafer and participate in Eucharist–a spiritual communion with a god–is a cause worthy of a lifetime of mind, body, and soul devotion. It’s all called “Holy Communion” for a reason.

So, there’s some humor in P.Z.’s surprise at the ferocity with which the church directed its outrage. But, when your identity is fundamentally tied to rituals and esoteric doctrines that predate reason and were systematically copied from Pagan ideologies, your beliefs in what is real and what is unsafe behavior extend far beyond that which P.Z. has defined as being within normal cognitive and behavioral limits.

As such, P.Z. should really watch his back. If you think that the Muslims have a long history of violence against heretics, let me tell you about these things that occurred not long ago in a galaxy not so far away….

Back when I was canonically obedient, I would worry endlessly about the virtue of my behavior. Would I go to hell for having lustful thoughts? Even if I have these thoughts all the time?

“Yes” was the only answer I could find so my ceaseless anxiety was without purpose. The affirmation that my mind was satan’s conduit should have clarified the destination to which I would arrive post-demise. However, my mind would cycle through the senseless notions that I was a good person despite my sinful nature and that I was a bad person despite my good nature.

Eventually, I realized that it was not a god who dangled the carrot. My so-called mentors and confidants hung the carrot on the rope and dangled it over my head. Once you realize your status as a patsy, you are better able to see the absurd little man who has wrapped himself in curtain that’s adorned with the face of christ.

Keep in mind my commentary as you read this:

[T]here was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.

…

But it can’t be yet, you say. You have a lot going on in your life? You’re getting married? Here’s how the New Living Translation describes that very sentiment in Luke:

When the Son of Man returns, the world will be like the people were in Noah’s day. In those days before the Flood, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat, and the flood came to destroy them all. – Luke 17:26-27

Happily going about as if everything was fine was what they did, too.

Blah, fucking blah, etc.

The world has been ending tomorrow since man first noticed that the big fiery ball in the sky surreptitiously disappears below the tree line. Countless yokels have fully purchased into this panicked notion and it’s likely that even more yokels legitimately believe that they can do something about it.

Here’s the real deal: You’re going to die. So live happily and reside somewhere where you can marry that man or woman without pappy christ’s watchmen looking over your shoulder. And all the better if he or she consents.

Via Andrew Sullivan, the Catholic mental ward also known as the American Life League is, on June 7th, bestowing the nation with “Protest the Pill Day ‘08: The Pill Kills Babies” protests that will occur in front of Planned Parenthood buildings and abortion clinics.

Because they’re a Catholic organization (which is synonymous with complete and utter honesty), let’s check they’re claims about the evil things that will happen to the pill taker (also known as the baby murderer):

• Cerebral hemorrhage (bleeding into the cranial cavity)^7,8
  (This one sounds bad.)
• Cerebral thrombosis (blood clot that drains blood from the brain)^7,8
  (This one sounds horrible.)
• Retinal thrombosis (blockage of the central retinal vein that carries blood away from the eye)^7,8
  (Oh. My. God.)
• Thrombophlebitis and venous thrombosis with or without embolism (blood clots in the veins)^4,7,8
  (Alright, this is getting scary.)
• Budd-Chiari Syndrome (closing of the veins that carry deoxygenated blood from the lower half of the body into the heart)^7,8
  (Sweet Jesus! I need salvation!)

But, wait. What do their sources say? Source 4 is a book or booklet or something entitled Infant Homicides through Contraceptives. I’m sure that it’s just a coincidence but you can purchase it for $1.95 from something called CatholicStore.com.

That leaves sources 7 and 8. Again, I’m sure that it’s just a coincidence but they both link to Ortho Tri-Cyclen inserts. Ortho Tri-Cyclen is also known as “the pill.” Source 7 is for regular Ortho Tri-Cyclen and source 8 is for Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo which contains 10 micrograms less estrogen than the standard pill. So, they have, essentially, the same side effects.

But, wait. Side effects? No, not really. Taking “the pill” is associated with an increased risk of developing a condition listed above. A side effect is nausea. Those are adverse reactions. Another adverse reaction is death and death can occur after taking for the first time something as common as Tylenol.

But, wait. What’s that commandment? Number 9? Thou shalt not bear fal… Hmmm, I can’t recall. Anyway, I’m sure it’s not an important one.

Christian Dominionism is the powerful political arm of Christianity. The end of abortion, gay marriage, and birth control and the regulation of personal behavior are among the goals Dominionism. Dominionism is not just another fundamental Christian lobby. Dominionists have enjoyed unparalleled and unprecedented access to the White House during Bush 43’s tenure.

The figureheads of the Dominionist movement are James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

James C. Dobson:

[James C.] Dobson is now America’s most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak.

Dobson earned the title. He proselytized hard for Bush this last year, organizing huge stadium rallies and using his radio program to warn his 7 million American listeners that not to vote would be a sin. Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.

He’s already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush “needs to be more aggressive” about pressing the religious right’s pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would “pay a price in four years.”

[In 2004], Dobson started a new offshoot of Focus on the Family called Focus on the Family Action, which he used to campaign openly for Bush. And during the campaign he joined Ralph Reed and…Charles Colson in regular conference calls with Karl Rove and other senior White House officials.

Crowley, M. (2004, November 12). James Dobson: The religious right’s new kingmaker. Slate. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.slate.com/id/2109621/

Focus on the Family:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF), founded in 1977, is a Christian non-profit organization based in the United States. The organization describes itself as “dedicated to nurturing and defending families worldwide”. The group was founded by James Dobson and is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical para-church organizations whose stated aim is not to start a new church or denomination, but to work interdenominationally to protect and promote their definitions of traditional family and family values. Some of the core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free counseling and resources for those facing family difficulties, and publishing a variety of magazines, videos and audio recordings.

Focus on the Family. (2006, December 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_family

Tony Perkins:

From 1996 to 2004, Perkins was a member of the East Baton Rouge delegation to the Louisiana House of Representatives, where he served as a Republican. Republican Perkins ran for the United States Senate in the 2002 Louisiana jungle primary and received 10 percent of the vote. Perkins became the President of the conservative Christian Family Research Council, a political offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family in September 2003.

Tony Perkins (politician). (2006, December 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(evangelical_Christian_figure)

Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council (FRC) is the powerhouse of Christian influence in Washington. Founded in 1983 by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, the FRC is led by former Louisiana state representative Tony Perkins. The FRC reportedly has the ear of many members of Congress, the White House, and Christians nationwide. FRC is actively involved in educating religious leaders about moral issues being affected by decisions in Washington, and also in representing those leaders directly to the decision makers themselves. You will find them well represented on news channels and radio stations nationwide, and at meetings where key strategies are planned.

AgapePress (2006, April 13). 20 reasons there is hope for America. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/132006c.asp

This post has four sections:

1. Social Stigma
2. Child-Rearing
3. Marriage
4. Conclusion: In Defense Of Science

The first three sections will include related statements by Dominionists and rebuttals by respected psychological empiricists.

I. Social Stigma

The Claims:

We are all shocked by this spectacle of aberrant sexual behavior, but we shouldn’t be. This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity…Maybe it’s time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?

Perkins, T. (2006, October 2). Family Research Council statement on Mark Foley. U.S. Newswire. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73618

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, issued a statement late Monday saying that although Democrats were exploiting the scandal, they “are right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders.” Perkins said neither party “seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse…ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership.”

Lochhead, C. (2006, October 3). Foley e-mail sex scandal hits the GOP hard. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/03/MNGSULH7QH1.DTL

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population. The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.

Daily, T. J. (n.d.) Homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

The Empirical Evidence:

In brief, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report don’t support their argument. Most of the studies they cited did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two of the studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated.

Herek, G. M. (2006, October 7). Child abuse and Christian (Right) science. Beyond Homophobia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2006/10/07/child-abuse-research/

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Herek, G. M. (n.d.) Facts about homosexuality and child molestation. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.

Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.

II. Child-Rearing

The Claims:

Two Mommies Is One Too Many

Mary Cheney is starting a family. Let’s hope she doesn’t start a trend

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God’s design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That’s why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

Dobson, J. C. (2006, December 12). Two mommies is one too many. TIME Magazine, 168(25). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485-1,00.html

KING: Can a gay couple be a family?

DOBSON: Not in that sense, no. And I think that gay couples have difficulties trying to be a family in that sense.

KING: You would not allow them to adopt children?

DOBSON: Oh, I definitely would not.

KING: Would not because?

DOBSON: No, because there is so much research. I mean, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and studies in the journals that show that children do best when you have a mother and a father providing role modeling for those kids and who are committed to each other.

King, L. (2002, March 7). Interview with Dr. James Dobson. Larry King Live. CNN. Transcript retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/lkl.00.html

The Empirical Evidence:

There is no evidence to suggest that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Despite longstanding legal presumptions against gay and lesbian parents in many states, despite dire predictions about their children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of’ heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1028-1042.

[T]here is suggestive evidence and good reason to believe that contemporary children and young adults with lesbian or gay parents do differ in modest and interesting ways from children with heterosexual parents. Most of the differences in the findings…cannot be considered deficits from any legitimate public policy perspective. They either favor the children with [lesbian and gay] parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent “just a difference” of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect.

Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183.

A Great Summation:

Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent.

American Psychiatric Association. (2002, November). Adoption and co-parenting of children by same-sex couples—Position statement. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200214.pdf

III. Marriage

First and foremost, the different types of partnerships need to be delineated.

Same-Sex Marriage:

At present, same-sex [civil] marriages are recognized in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws). Israel’s High Court of Justice recently ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country.

Same-sex marriage. (2006, December 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Vermont, California, and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples some or all of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage; the District of Columbia does as well. They do not use the word “marriage,” however, but call such unions “civil union” or “domestic partnership”.

Same-sex marriage in the United States. (2006, December 8). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Civil Union:

A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. Civil Unions were introduced in the UK and elsewhere to attempt to give legal rights to same-sex couples equal to those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples in marriage. Many people are critical of civil unions because they say it creates a separate status that’s unequal to marriage. Others are critical because they say it is introducing same-sex marriage by using a different name.

Civil union. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Common-Law Marriage:

Common-law marriage…is, historically, a form of interpersonal status in which a man and a woman are legally married. The term is often mistakenly understood to indicate an interpersonal relationship that is not recognized in law. In fact, a common law marriage is just as legally binding as a statutory or ceremonial marriage in most jurisdictions — it is just formed differently.

The essential distinctions of a common law marriage are:

1. Common law marriages are not licensed by government authorities.
2. Common law marriages are not necessarily solemnized.
3. There is no public record of a common law marriage (i.e., no marriage certificate).
4. Cohabitation alone does not amount to common law marriage; the couple in question must hold themselves out to the world to be husband and wife.

In some jurisdictions, a couple must have cohabited and held themselves out to the world as husband and wife for a minimum length of time for the marriage to be recognized as valid.

Common-law marriage. (2006, December 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Domestic Partnership:

In the United States, domestic partnership is a state or employer-recognized status similar to marriage that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a state-recognized legal domestic partnership does not confer many of the 1,049 rights afforded to a civil marriage. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined on a state-by-state basis, and sometimes on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis.

States with same-sex domestic partnership provisions include New York, California, Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey, as well as the District of Columbia.

Domestic partnership in the United States. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnerships_in_the_United_States

The Effort to Define Marriage:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex “marriage.” Second, it defines the words “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of Federal law.

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of “spouse”…It ensures that whatever definition of “spouse” may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

“Defense Of Marriage Act” 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis. (n.d.) Retrieved December 13, 2006, from the ‘Lectric Law Library’s stacks Web site: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

[Originally proposed by Colorado republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave in 2002] the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) [H.J. Res 56] is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other unmarried persons. The most recent vote on the proposed amendment took place in the Senate on June 7, 2006. The amendment failed to pass; of the 60 votes required to [end the debate], 49 senators voted for putting the amendment to vote and 48 voted against.

Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The first sentence of the FMA would prevent any state from allowing same-sex marriage, even if the voters of that state amended the state’s constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriages. Ratification of the amendment would cause the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages currently recognized in Massachusetts.

The amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage, an organization founded by Matt Daniels.

Federal Marriage Amendment. (2006, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

The Claims:

Shared beliefs have created a broad alliance between the Catholic Leadership Conference and the Alliance for Marriage. In full support of the [Federal Marriage Amendment] written… the Catholic Leadership Conference (CLC) has joined AFM in endorsing the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

“These are momentous times: Soon the Senate will vote on S.J. 1 ‘[Federal Marriage Amendment].’ If we do not act now to protect marriage, our children and grandchildren will pay a terrible price.”

(Same-sex) marriage teaches that men and women don’t need each other, that children don’t need mothers and fathers and that marriage is primarily about affirming adults’ diverse intimacy needs rather than protecting children.”

Alliance For Marriage. (n.d.) Catholics move to prevent bigotry in marriage. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.allianceformarriage.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5892

As the transient, promiscuous, and unfaithful relationships that are characteristic of homosexuals become part of society’s image of marriage, fewer marriages will be permanent, exclusive, and faithful–even among heterosexuals. So-called “conservative” advocates of same-sex civil marriage are optimistic that legal unions would change homosexuals for the better; it seems far more probable that homosexuals would change marriage for the worse.

Sprigg, P. (2004, March 29). Homosexuality: The threat to the family and the attack on marriage. Speech presented at the World Congress of Families III, Mexico City, MX. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04F01

The Empirical Evidence:

The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do no differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent’s sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a health and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61(6), 607-621.

Research indicates that many gay men and lesbians want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship. Further, data from the 2000 United States Census indicate that of the 5.5 million couples who were living together but not married, about 1 in 9 (594,391) had partners of the same sex.

Despite persuasive evidence that gay men and lesbians have committed relationships, three concerns about same-sex couples are often raised. A first concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are dysfunctional and unhappy. To the contrary, studies that have compared partners from same-sex couples to partners from heterosexual couples on standardized measures of relationship quality (such as satisfaction and commitment) have found partners from same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other.

A second concern is that the relationships of gay men and lesbians are unstable. However, research indicates that, despite the somewhat hostile social climate within which same-sex relationships develop, many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years.

A third concern is that the processes that affect the well-being and permanence of the relationships of lesbian and gay persons are different from those that affect the relationships of heterosexual persons. In fact, research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples.

American Psychological Association. (2004, July). Resolution on sexual orientation and marriage. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf

IV. Conclusion: In Defense Of Science

Conviction and dogma permeate socio-political and -religious debate. Every empirically validated hypothesis and theory is therefore reduced in status to an opinion only held by those with dogmatic bindings. To the Dominionist movement, evidence that positively correlates the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of hetero and homosexuals is, in its judgment, merely a misguided estimation. In regards to sexuality, science tells us that attraction is a biologically-based phenomenon. Whether we are pedophilic, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, our preference is hardwired and extremely resistant to intervention. Unfortunately, the Dominionist movement rejects this and paints a picture of attraction that is based solely on the notion that variation outside of the opposing-sex dynamics experienced and shared by “normal” adults is disorderly and an “unnecessary evil.” However, as deft as the Dominionist movement is at exploiting the fear that surrounds this “unnecessary evil,” science holds the trump card: mathematics. It seems to be a dirty little secret that science progresses solely on the basis of numerical significance and duplicability. For instance, older males are significantly more at risk to attempt suicide than all other age and gender cohorts. This phenomenon has been so numerically verified that it is accepted as fact. This same standard is applied to sexuality by rational individuals. The statistical analyses conducted by social scientists do not suddenly become less valid when an individual believes that his or her deity disagrees.

A professor once told me, and I agree, that science is the pursuit of god. Our goal is to understand and explain 100% of our universe through our limited human framework. If we are to perceive god as everything, then, logically, we are discovering god bit by bit. Scientific theory may be able to account for, say, 10% of our experience. A theory such as E=MC^2 may increase our understanding to 12%. A subsequent theory may rock the boat and reduce our understanding to 8%. Certainly, science is fluidic and uncertain and it cannot be rendered into dogma. Nor can it be dismissed as opinion. It, as our current “best guess,” is somewhere in between. My belief is that a majority of people neither like nor value uncertainty. Holy books are fraught with moral directives and imperatives. They offer unyielding certainty and have been constructed to explain the sum of one’s experiences if one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are maintained within the recommended framework. This framework is considered “good” while all competing frameworks are considered “evil.” The verbiage employed by this binary outlook fosters fear and misunderstanding. Evil must be withstood because inherent to the term is the belief that evil is supernaturally deceptive and seductive. Realistically, we are all more similar than dissimilar. Diversity is therefore an educational yet unnecessary pretense that can be deconstructed through the empirical discovery that is accomplished by science and congenial communion that is accomplished by religion.

Though it is not yet Sunday, this is just too good to wait. Tony Zirkle is a Republican running for Congress. Tony Zirkle fixates on religion, pornography, and Jewish people. Tony Zirkle gives a speech to about 60 neo-Nazis and white supremacists on Hitler’s birthday, April 20th:

Tony Zirkle defends himself on his campaign message board:

Socialists deserve to hear the Gospel and some of them might need it more than the average person. I took it as an opportunity to hand out an entire box of books on the life of Christ. Additionally, WWII may never have happened had we not neglected pornography and prostitution in the Jewish community. Hitler would not have had his most powerful argument when he claimed that Jews cartelled [sic] 97% of all international prostitution. Let’s not repeat history.

Tony Zirkle is long winded:

Jewish porn paints German porn as being into bondage and S&M which is just sick. If we’d stop defaming Germans for what happened generations ago, maybe they’d have better self-esteem.

I don’t think 99% of Jews are ashamed of Jews in porn space when the victims are very often white, Christian women with Christian crosses hanging around their necks. Where do you think the “Money Shot” comes from? Intentional degradation of white women right in the face.

If Jews weren’t wasting their brilliant intelligence in porn and frivolous entertainment, we’d have 200 miles per gallon vehicles and many other technological developments. Jews, as the most intelligent race in my experience (I’ve dated more Jewesses than any other category), are wasting their God-given gifts and not blessing the world as they should. Polio was appreciated. I’m not sure about Freud’s psychology, Marx’s communism or Einstein’s nuclear bomb assistance.

Jews brag about getting porn started in this nation. Now any punk with a camera can get into it. See the Jewish Quarterly article I quoted. Jewish men were the bulk of the original porn stars in the early decades. The argument was that Jewish men, with super self-confidence with the really delusional idea that they are the “chosen ones” even if they commit porn-adultery, could perform on camera. Male porn stars are now more likely to be black. We have exchanged the slave economic auction block for the porn mule one and, if you believe that one should not fear the one who can harm the body but should fear the one who can throw both body and soul into Gehenna, then the latter state of black men may be worse if that’s even possible.

[Tony Zirkle continues rambling for 300+ more words.]

I added emphasis to the “Jewesses” line because I find the “It’s okay because I have friends/fucked girls who are ______” defense funny. For more hilarity, check out Tony Zirkle’s campaign site and always keep an eye out for the great porn dragon and stay away from divorce aids.

(Really, check it out. This dude is fucking nuts.)

On second thought, this isn’t very funny. It’s actually quite frightening:

The family was gone, and we were just waiting on the funeral home to come and pick it up. When you’re alone with a corpse in a room, you suddenly realize how the corpse resembles all the other objects in the room. In other words, the corpse is just like the furniture. It has become human furniture.

Then it struck me: this is what atheists think we all are. The corpse is just a material object and nothing more. According to atheism, we are all just like the corpse: we are just material objects.

Once you believe that about human beings, you can do anything to them. Though we treat the corpse with respect for the sake of the family, we really don’t have to for any other reason. It’s just a show. You can’t respect a corpse anymore than you can a chair. A corpse is an object.

Ultimately, though atheists know they don’t dare admit it, this is the inevitable consideration atheism gives to all humanity. This is where the atheistic influence is dragging us all. If I’m wrong, all I ask is that you show me.

Edward Gordon is a Christian fundamentalist who operates Christian Cross Talk, a blog “dedicated to encouraging Christians in their faith and fighting the spiriutal [sic] war against the influence of atheism in our society.”

As we all well know, Christians have been fighting “spiritual wars” since Christianity had the backing of a state treasury. Without fail, the ultimate purpose of these wars was to extend the power of a state by claiming another state’s resources. Religion was used to grease the gears of the war machine. You were promised that, if you died in war, you would bypass those 1000 agonizing years in purgatory and go straight to heaven. This bears complete resemblance to the Islamic promise of 80,000 servants and 72 wives.

I mention this because Mr. Gordon believes:

As for the National Christian Church, we still believe that is something we need, but we don’t believe it is something that should be linked to a secular government. Better, we must advocate for a unification of denominations among all churches in the body of Christ.

A centralized Christian behemoth could fund a great war against, well, everything. Unfortunately, Mr. Gordon, who probably fantasizes about being emperor, believes he is able to and can successfully think like an atheist. But, when you read through his posts you find that Mr. Gordon is channeling his own sociopathic thoughts onto a minority about which he understands nothing. We psychology people refer to this as projection.

Take, for instance, the post Promises in the Dark. Mr. Gordon begins with this illogical proposition:

Atheists deny that consciousness is anything more than an illusion produced by the mind, and it cannot control the brain. Therefore, they must believe we have no free will over the physical circumstances that push us around. Without free will there can be no love.

What follows is a bizarre caricature of a psychopath. The psychopath is an atheist. In Mr. Gordon’s mind, the two are interchangeable. This is a great example of a condition that seems to be prevalent in religious circles: the unintegrated ego. Like a child, Mr. Gordon still views the world in terms of “all good” and “all bad.” All Christians are, ultimately, all good and should unify in their goodness under God. All atheists are, ultimately, all bad and are unified in their badness under Satan.

To minimize the cognitive dissonance created by the knowledge that he is capable of great harm, Mr. Gordon projects his own evil onto the minority upon which it is currently most popular to project (Jewish people, Black people, and gay people could say a thing or two about projection). This way, if anything goes wrong, he can blame the atheists. And, if he should accept some blame, he can say that the wrong committed by the atheists is malicious and large relative to the well-intentioned and minimal wrong committed by him.

This is an example of closed-loop processing. Mr. Gordon is always right and, if he’s wrong, he’s never as wrong as those damned atheists. I assume he ends his posts with a “prove me wrong” type statement or question in order to receive comments at which he can shake his head and believe that they don’t meet his standards of proof.

If, unlike Mr. Gordon, you are legitimately seeking an explanation regarding the differences between a theist and an atheist, this is the only answer you’ll ever need:

“normal” theist: “What a lovely day. Praise God for it!”
“normal” atheist: “What a lovely day.”

My friend Michael emailed me this post from Dilbert owner and operator Scott Adams. In short, Adams created a character named Jesus (pronounced “Hay - Soos”). In the final installment of the Hay - Soos series, Jesus returns to save everyone’s pensions. His story will never be told because Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss forgot to write it down.

Anyway, oddly enough this series offended some Christians. From Adams’ post:

Hello! Mr. Adams,

Mr. Adams I just want to tell you that I don’t really appreciate you making a mockery of my faith. I used to think that your comic strip was funny, now I think it is very disgusting and not funny at all. I have found your last comics strips in reference to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ very offensive. There is a place for everything and there is a place for humor and humor has its limits, especially when it comes to those things and issues that some of us hold as sacred. I will pray for you and that some day you may come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Otherwise you will find Him some day as your judge, and He will justly judge you for your sins and whether or not you believe in Hell that day you will believe and you will repent when you see Him face to face, but then it will be too late. Repent from your wicked ways and stop making fun of my Savior.

Thanks for your time.

Pastor (name deleted).
California

My response…

Thank you for taking time out from feeding the poor to complain about comic strips. I know Jesus would have played it the same way.

Scott

The email made me wonder if people have always been this easily offended. I tend to think so because people have always wanted to destroy that which they do not understand and that which threatens their worldview.

Ironically, the Biblical Jesus became a victim of that mentality.

Via Right Wing Watch, this one from Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council (FRC) hurts:

The Democratic Leadership is rushing to the floor this week H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The bill would place a massive new government mandate on private businesses to provide healthcare coverage for mental illness. Of even more concern, though, is the fact that rather than limit the coverage mandate to severe and debilitating illness, the bill uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the basis for identifying conditions that must be covered. Among the more troubling diagnoses incorporated into DSM-IV are:

• Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (jet lag type);
• Caffeine intoxication;
• Sibling relational problem;
• Substance-induced sexual dysfunction;
• Gender identity disorder;
• Necrophilia;
• Transvestic fetishism; and
• Pedophilia.

Under H.R. 1424, employers offering group coverage would be required to provide benefits related to these and similar diagnoses included in DSM-IV. In addition, the bill provides no conscience clause for employers who have religious or moral objections to covering the psycho-sexual disorders, including those noted above [emphasis mine].

I’ve found that, for a reason unknown to me, some people are against mental illness diagnoses until a family member or the family suffers from the effects of a diagnosable mental illness. After a bit of mulling, they pour over their options like hot cheese on Panera’s French onion soup.

Physical illnesses like Alzheimer’s and diabetes do not fall within politically or religiously correct boundaries. Mental illnesses are the same. Incidentally, FRC President Tony Perkins has a son named David. If David were to ever come out as a homosexual, it’s very likely that Mr. Perkins would want his son to engage in the “fix the gayness in you” therapy know as reparative therapy. FRC’s position on homosexual

FRC does not consider homosexuality an alternative lifestyle or sexual “preference”; it is unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society. Compassion–not bigotry–compels us to support the healing of homosexuals who wish to change their destructive behavior.

alludes to this sort of treatment. A “sibling relational problem” that is causing distress is obviously not as high as homosexuality on the FRC disorders-needing-treatment hierarchy. But, maybe that’s the point.

(On the left: Bill Donohue. On the right: John Hagee.)

The vile President of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, took on the equally vile evangelical pastor John Hagee after Hagee endorsed the 2008 Republican nominee John McCain. From Greenwald’s interview with Donohue:

If someone said to me: who is the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community, I would say: hands down, John Hagee.

This is Hagee’s take on the Catholic Church:

Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of the [sic] Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea’…. In all of his [Hitler's] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed-to them it’s an electric chair. (pp. 79-81)

The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages…. The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade…. The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem. (p. 73)

Unfortunately for Hagee, although he’s correct about the Catholic Church’s desire to destroy that which was a danger to its existence, at the end of the day Hagee is a dogmatic wackjob. His take on the Harry Potter series:

“As millions of people anticipate the release of the latest Harry Potter book and film, we’re reminded once again of Satan’s ongoing attempt to deceive and destroy. The whole purpose of the Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult [emphasis mine].”

Donohue is absolutely no exception:

On October 13, 2005, he appeared on NBC’s Today Show. While on the show he asserted that the crisis was “a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal”.

It’s my hope that these two strikingly similar looking obese white men (see above) eat each other or something.

I like how, after he has destroyed Earth, Jesus will relax in his Egyptian-style crown and smile like he’s in a beer commercial.

Endless celestial sex? Where do I sign?

In addition, though most people, including scientists, consider the biblical teaching of origins to be religious and consider evolutionary ideas scientific, we should challenge such a view. In the secular media, for instance, the debate is often described as “creationism vs. evolution,” as if the “ism” should not apply to “evolution.” This is not accurate, because believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past.

Dear Dr. Moore,

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought-that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc-should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.

George Orwell, 1984, Appendix

[h/t Andrew Sullivan]