Morally Responsible

(Adapted from a response to a comment from Jake)

My morality shifts. When I learn of new evidence, new arguments, new rationale, what I determine to be moral can change. I may have accepted slavery 400 years ago as moral. Maybe because I believed the claims of a prophet or a barbaric, ancient text. Fortunately, now I have better evidence, arguments, and reasons for my position. The “fair test” is against the best evidence and arguments we have. Not against the words of ignorant and ill-informed tribesmen who lived 6000 years ago.

Fortunately, those who claim to follow biblical morality change as well. It is rare to see someone stoned to death for believing differently, or for being gay, or being a disobedient child, or for not having been a virgin on her wedding night.

Ten Christians will interpret The Bible ten different ways. Some will think homosexuality a sin. Some won’t. Some will claim that ‘grace’ is all that is needed for salvation. Some will say “faith without works is dead.” Who is right? Who is wrong? What methodology was used to determine it?

  • Two Christians debating Biblical morality are engaged in a semantic and/or literary debate.
  • Two atheists debating secular morality are engaged in a philosophical and/or scientific debate.

I would argue that the second methodology is a better way to arrive at a useful and meaningful conclusion.

I have read The Bible. Besides the clear endorsement of slavery in the Old Testament, Paul clearly instructs slaves to “obey your earthly masters with respect and fear.” (Eph. 6:5). Though I am sure many Christians have some biblical answer that they feel negates this or explains it, and I am happy to hear it, we would be involved in a semantic or literary debate; not a moral debate. Not a philosophical debate. If what The Bible says is moral, simply by virtue of being in The Bible, then I argue that it plainly endorses slavery and never plainly condemns it. If, however, we want to argue actual morality, I argue that slavery introduces cruelty and misery which is not preferable to health and happiness. It does not benefit the whole of our species. It does not make the survival of the individual nor our species more likely. Which debate is more useful?  A tit-for-tat of scriptural versus, or a debate on what is really right and wrong and why? What is best for individuals and our society? Which position better promotes happiness and well-being?

Christians argue that Biblical morality is superior to secular morality because it is more “concrete.”  It has a “solid” foundation in The Bible and in God.  Looking at history, however, Biblical morality also changes.  Ritual circumcision changed. Consumption of pork changed. Stoning laws changed. Seems that biblical morality lacks solid ground as well.

It was once acceptable to believe that The Earth was the center of the universe. It was always wrong. We now have the evidence to know that model is incorrect.

Slavery was socially acceptable. It was always morally wrong. We now know it. We have the evidence and the rationale of its inherent harm – to the individuals as well as to our society and species.

The US currently has a death penalty for certain crimes. Some people use The Bible to justify it. Others use The Bible to condemn it. Who is right and who is wrong about The Bible’s position is not a moral argument; it is a matter of literary opinion. I think it would be far better to use evidence, reason, and critical thinking to arrive at a superior and more structurally sound conclusion.

Biblical morality is based on an ancient text, changing based on who is doing the reading, who is doing the interpreting, and in which version. Christians claim those morals are based on a universal constant that cannot be reliably demonstrated. My morality, and indeed, the morality of our entire society, is always changing and shifting – usually for the better. From slavery to murder; each previously justified in the minds of believers by The Bible, who now use the same tome to condemn them. Very convenient for believers, but not the steadfast platform for morality they claim it to be.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” – Robert Heinlein

Arrogant Faith

Growing up, I was taught by my LDS parents and teachers that the LDS faithful would one day be commanded by The Prophet to return and reclaim Independence, Missouri.  I was told that we may even have to walk there as our ancestors had.  That the journey could be just as hard as our forbearers, but that, as The Faithful & Elect, we would be protected and blessed.  I was told that we would listen to our prophets and we would do as we were commanded.

What would you be willing to do if commanded by your religious leaders?  What wouldn’t you be willing to do?  If they speak for and behalf of The Almighty God, who knows all, shouldn’t you be willing to do absolutely anything?

“If God told you to kill your child—would you do it?” — Penn Jillette

I wouldn’t.  Not if He personally came down, 100% proving His existence and power, knocked me out of bed, and told me that, if I didn’t murder my daughter with my bare hands, He would torture me for eternity.

I would hope I could even muster the courage to spit in His almighty, but definitively evil face.

The story of Abraham is truly terrifying.  Believers teach it as a story of faith; that we must trust to God, who knows best.  “But, Heavenly Father saved Isaac.”  No.  Abraham had murder in his heart.  A willingness to cut open his innocent and only son.  Not a desire, but a willingness.  A blind obedience to commit an act of pure evil if only commanded.  God didn’t save Isaac; He merely changed His mind.

Mr. Jillette asks the question above to illustrate, if you would not murder your child at the command of the god you claim has the right and authority to command your actions, you are probably already an atheist.

If a religious leader in whom you trust told you that your God had commanded your family to sell all of your clothing and belongings and live unprotected in the winter mountains? That God had promised to provide for you? Would you do that?  Would you willingly put your family in mortal danger?  Trusting in God to provide?

If the religious leader commanded that you, not even kill, but pointlessly harm your child in some small way?  That God had promised you blessings without number for an earthly demonstration of your faith, would you do it?

If a man you *knew* to be a prophet told you to turn and rant and rail against your child, just because of whom they love?

Would you do it?

Or, instead, would you love your child regardless, and help them to grow up happy and healthy?  Loving those they loved and who made them happy – regardless of what a man who doesn’t know you, and doesn’t know your child, chooses to say from a great and spacious building?

“It’s not arrogant to say that you can’t figure out the answers to the universe with your internal faith. It’s not arrogant to know that there’s no omniscient, omnipotent prime mover in the universe who loves you personally. It’s not sad to feel that life and the love of your real friends and family is more than enough to make life worth living. Isn’t it much sadder to feel that there is a more important love required than the love of the people who have chosen to spend their limited time with you?”– Penn Jillette

One Half of Wisdom

“What do you believe, and why?”

. . . is the unofficial motto and often the first question asked of theistic callers to The Atheist Experience.  It is the question that drives most religious debates and discussions.

While listening to Tanner Gillibrand on MormonTransitions this past week, I stumbled upon his response to a family member who asked the question of Tanner when he announced his resignation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (…).  Tanner’s response, in which he details his desperate efforts to keep his faith, is beautiful, heart-breaking, and brilliant.

This was the hardest time of my life. I used to drive out to the fields in Rexburg and pray out loud for hours, begging God for some light, but it never came. Jesus said, “What man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?” I begged for a loaf and received nothing. I would have taken a stone over the silence.

[…]

I thought I loved God my whole life. But as I studied the scriptures I realized I could not love such a God. Rather than a God that was found through love, I saw a God that was found through loyalty tests…

Tanner’s family member was brave to ask the question, and Tanner was brave to lay open his story.  Reading his letter, however, I realized that I had never been asked that question by my family or by those friends who had raised me to be a good, believing member of The LDS Church.  None of them asked me to write on this blog.  None of them likely read it.

When I lost my faith, I was taken to a therapist.  I told the therapist I didn’t believe The Church anymore.  The therapist told my parents.  My parents were disappointed, and hurt, but I never remember them asking me why I stopped believing.

After I stopped attending services, my father once asked me if I was going on an LDS Mission.  Somewhat befuddled by the idea of giving two years of my life to a religion in which I no longer believed, I answered with a quick, “No.”  He asked why not, and I replied impatiently, “Because I don’t believe it anymore.”  He never asked a follow up question.  Was it because of my teenage attitude or his lack of curiosity?  I’ll never know.

Later I ran into a member of the local bishopric and a good friend of my father’s.  He asked why I stopped coming to church.  I replied that I didn’t believe it anymore, and that I had some problems with some doctrines and beliefs.  Before I could go on, he stopped me and told me that he knew people who had left The Church, and knew their problems with The Church, but it didn’t matter.  “It’s just true, and I think you know that.”

Instantly dismissive of my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs.  How intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant.  Though it is highly doubtful, this man may have been able to address some of my concerns, but, for him, it seemed better to dwell in ignorance.

After my child was born, our families passively danced around the issue of religion until I felt it necessary to confront my mother about my lack of beliefs.  Though she acknowledged the atheist position, of which she was already aware, she asked no other questions of me.  Even when I resigned my membership in The LDS Church, and sent a direct e-mail making my actions known, not a single member of my family, including my innumerable extended family members, asked any variation of, “What do you believe, and why?”

Why are we so afraid to discuss this topic?  I am guilty as well.  I often want to ask my siblings, father-in-law, brother-in-law, what they believe and why they believe, but I I avoid it – afraid of offending them, as I have been offended.  Why is this one topic so volatile?  So alarming? Though I study and obsess over these subjects, I never really ask those true believers who are all around me.  Are we all really that thin-skinned, or do we just assume that everyone else is so easily distressed?

It is likely part of why I continue to write here; so that I can openly express to strangers what I’d really like to express to those I love.  In which case, thank you for reading.

“A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.” – Francis Bacon

The Religious Right Shouldn’t Be Able to Vote…

…for Trump based on their conscience.  Yes, admittedly clickbait, but, read below.

I’m not sure how those that believe in the 10 commandments can, in good conscience, vote for Trump.

Let’s look at the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness”

Let’s look at last night’s (2016/10/09) debate:

“I didn’t say sex tape”

“Grab them by the p*ssy”

In the debate, when pressed, he said he did not ever act out what he said he’d done in the recently leaked tape, and that it was just ‘locker room’ talk.  Personally, I think it’s more likely that he did do what he was saying, but taking him at his word, is locker room talk an excuse to lie?

He mentions Hillary Clinton proposes increasing refuges by 550% which will lead to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of new refugees.

While the 550% percent increase is true, proposing allowing 65,000 refugees in 2017, there is no additional allow statements made by Clinton, therefore, no ‘hundreds of thousands’.

“I don’t know Putin … I know nothing about Russia”

I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.”

He continued to say that he couldn’t release taxes because he’s being audited

“Nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information,” the IRS said in a statement. This has been pointed out to him many times, but he continues to state the lie that he can’t release them.

“ICE just endorsed me. They’ve never endorsed a presidential candidate.”

They did not endorse him. A union of immigration and customs officers voted to endorse Trump.

“… we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you’ve never seen”

Apprehensions at the Southwest border, a proxy for attempted crossings, have dropped by 79 percent from the year 2000, which was the peak. Pew Research Center reports more Mexicans left the U.S. than entered between 2009 and 2014.

“I was against the war in Iraq”

When asked if he supported the war in Iraq, he said on Howard Stern’s show, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

I could go on and on and on.

How about “Thou shalt not commit adultery”

I want to be VERY clear on this.  While Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, the Senate acquitted him…  While he has had a questionable past when it comes to adultery… He’s not running for President.  Does a person stand on their own merits? If you think so, then Hillary is not guilty of Bill’s crimes. If you think a person doesn’t stand on their own merits, then you have your own issues.

That said, Donald Trump has had confirmed mistresses, affairs, etc., and in fact has left previous wives and married the mistresses. This seems like an extremely large glass house that he’s attempting to throw stones from.

What about “Thou shalt not steal”?

He doesn’t pay taxes, as far as we can tell, and continues to claim he can’t provide proof until he’s done with his audits, which is 100% false, to the point that the IRS has said there is no issues with him releasing his tax documents.  Is not paying taxes not theft? He talks of deficits, which have been largely caused by tax loopholes for the top 1%, but continues to not pay taxes (as far as we can see). Another glass house?

Therefore, as a member of the religious right, do you really feel, in good conscience, that you can vote for an individual that so blatantly flaunts the commandments of the bible?

I haven’t ever said to someone “don’t vote” even when they disagree with me, but, perhaps a write in vote for your ideal candidate would better serve your conscience.

Father of the Eon

“To be the father of growing daughters is to understand something of what Yeats evokes with his imperishable phrase ‘terrible beauty.’ Nothing can make one so happily exhilarated or so frightened: it’s a solid lesson in the limitations of self to realize that your heart is running around inside someone else’s body. It also makes me quite astonishingly calm at the thought of death: I know whom I would die to protect and I also understand that nobody but a lugubrious serf can possibly wish for a father who never goes away.”  — Christopher Hitchens

Religious people, especially Mormons, often talk about how God as if he is like our father. Our “spiritual” father.  He loves each and every one of us. He cares for us, watches our progress, and is either proud or disappointed in us and our choices. That does sound fatherly, doesn’t it?

Except, is it fatherly that He never tells us what He wants? Rather, God told people He knew before we were born to write down what He wants in a language we don’t speak?

Is it fatherly that He doesn’t give us those writings? Rather, we, His children, are supposed to stumble upon those writings, or be told about those writings, and buy those writings, and somehow know that they came from Him?

Is it fatherly that Our Father punishes or rewards us, in this life or the next, on whether we found those writings, then somehow knew that they were His inspired transcriptions, and were somehow able to live up to His demanding expectations?

Is it fatherly of God to utterly ignore us when we ask hard complicated questions?  Is it fatherly to answer, “It’s complicated and mysterious” rather than “Jerry lied on his resume. That’s wrong, so to teach him a lesson I gave him cancer” or “Elaine got HIV by accident. She’s largely a good person.”

Was it fatherly of Our Father to violently drown thousands/millions of our brothers and sisters, even the children and infants and pregnant women, because He was mad with most of the adults?

Is it fatherly to allow thousands of our brothers and sisters die horrifically in a natural catastrophe like an Earthquake when God has the power to prevent it?  Or miraculously save them?  Or even create a planet without tectonic plates in the first place?

If that is what it means to be fatherly, then I am a more terrible father than I first imagined.

Because, when my daughter asks me a question, I answer it as best I can, even if it’s over her head. I don’t ignore her entirely, say nothing, and let a friend who believes he knows what I want her to know tell her that the answer is a book written cryptically in Klingon.

When I want her to clean up her toys, I instruct her, “Clean up your toys, please.” I don’t write my instructions on a Post-It and hide it amongst a pile of other possibly related, but mostly unrelated and historically insignificant Post-Its and expect her to find it, and, if she doesn’t, severely punish her in an obscure way at some point far in the future.

I would never move her into a poorly constructed house prone to causing death and dismemberment and, when the inevitable accident occurred, write on a Post-It, “It’s just a test of your character. I think you’ll do fine with one arm. You can thank me and love me, but blame me or question my motives for this latest hardship and I’ll punish you more.”

God doesn’t act fatherly. He acts exactly as if He didn’t exist.

Intrinsically Impossible Power

In my quest for understanding and empathy, I frequently find myself having imaginary debates with imaginary religious people. Regardless of the subject of the debate, a question I repeatedly ask is, “Why do the religious believe that God is so impotent and powerless?”

That may seem an odd question, assuming that most religious people consider God to be the omnipotent creator of all things – and often the cause of massive, inexplicable miracles. To me however, from the outside perspective, it seems that most religious people have no faith whatsoever in God’s power.

For example, the Christian citizens upset about same-sex marriage. They insist that such a thing would anger and upset God. Yet, same-sex marriage is now common place. God, though ostensibly angered by this, did nothing and has done nothing. Why not? At the very least, He only had to convince only one more Supreme Court justice. Being all powerful, God could have forcibly changed the judge’s mind, or, respecting free-will, could have inspired the anti-marriage lawyers to say just the right thing to change that judge’s mind, or, more theatrically, He could have appeared in the clouds over The Supreme Court saying, “I am Yahweh of The Bible. Hear my words! Read Deuteronomy again! Did I stutter? No legalized marital buggery!”

But He didn’t. If He does exist, and if He does hate same-sex relations, He stood idly by and let a few believers wave signs and holler what they believe to be His wishes.

There are more personal examples; my daughter and I. My wife and I have chosen to raise her in a secular home. As one of God’s beloved children, this must be very troubling to Him. Why would He allow me to teach her about The Big Bang and Evolution? Why wouldn’t He lead me to a convincing apologetic book? Or inspire me to think of something that would lead me back to whatever the right path is? If not for my sake, then for my daughter’s? Instead, He, apparently, leads me to things like http://www.fairmormon.org or http://www.discovery.org/ – ludicrous, flimsy, implausible and dubious explanations of life’s more difficult questions.

I guess I have to assume that, since God has a plan and hasn’t punished me with boils, or whale consumption, or temporary blindness, or a sodium-chloride spouse, my apostasy and blasphemy is all part of that Divine Plan. As is me writing this, you reading it, you considering it, and, possibly, you refuting it in a way that will finally convince me that He’s certainly there and that science and evidence and rational critical thinking are all pointless in the face of pure faith.

As George Carlin so brilliantly put it (cleaned up to avoid over offending):

I’ve often thought people treat God rather rudely, don’t you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. “Do this”, “gimme that”, “I need a new car”, “I want a better job.”

And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about The Divine Plan? Remember that? The Divine Plan? Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought. Decided it was a good plan. Put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, The Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn’t it seem a little arrogant? It’s a Divine Plan. What’s the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and mess up Your Plan?

And here’s something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren’t answered. What do you say? “Well, it’s God’s will.” “Thy Will Be Done.” Fine, but if it’s God’s will, and He’s going to do what He wants to anyway, why bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn’t you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It’s all very confusing.

Silent Subjugation

I’m a fat, white, American, male.

I’m white…which, thank God for that shit, boy. That is a huge leg up. Are you kidding me? Oh, God, I love being white. I really do. Seriously, if you’re not white, you’re missing out. Because this shit is thoroughly good. Let me be clear, by the way. I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better.” … “Now, if you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an asshole. – Louis C.K.

Louis C.K. is right. I wish he isn’t. Skin color is for another day though. For this I’m going to give my own quote and say “I’m male…which, thank God for that shit, boy.”  If I didn’t admit that being male was great, I’d be an asshole.

If we just simply look at gender (just male and female, not variations or identity), being born male is a ‘huge leg up.’

I’m not saying this because I believe there is really any reason for this to be the case, I’m saying this because of society’s and, arguably more-so, religion’s treatment of women.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. – 1 Timothy 2:11-12

In fact, I suggest reading all of 1 Corinthians 11, it’s horrible. Stuff about women being created for man, women being “of the man”, etc.

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. – Ephesians 5:23-24

Talk about a power trip.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. – Judges 19:24

How the Bible is any basis for morality is beyond me.   As the late Christopher Hitchens said, “religion poisons everything.”

These (and the many other) teachings don’t lead to morality, they lead to Donald Trump saying of Megyn Kelly “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

They lead to college males saying “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal!” and “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women and fill them with my semen.”

If you don’t find those absolutely reprehensible, YOU are part of the problem. And, if you’ve ever said those, or similar phrases, with anything other than revulsion, then I suggest you get help. Maybe we should have women walking around with strap-ons saying “No Means Yes, Yes Means Pegging!” It’s only fair.

If you’re posting things on the Internet suggesting horrible things happen to women for some reason or another… you’re a terrible human being. You should know better, and I bet you do. Your anonymity gives you cover to be a male asshole. You know why you feel powerful?  You’re male.  You have no concept. You don’t have to suffer assholes like yourselves. You have no understanding of the fear that women feel because of male assholes.

They lead to attorney Keith Sullivan saying “Look, many women have what’s known as ‘regret sex,’” as a dismissal of rape.  He’s part of the problem. If you are of a same mind, you’re part of the problem. “Due to varying definitions of a “False Accusation”, the true percentage of false accusations remains unknown, but is assumed to be a very small minority of reports of sexual assault”  If you believe false accusation is a platform, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to Anna Duggar blaming herself for Josh’s cheating.  Want to know Josh’s mother’s top marriage tip for Anna? Saying yes whenever Josh wants sex. If you also think this is a good marriage tip, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to assholes putting women’s home addresses on the internet to cause fear and silence.  If you don’t think this is wrong, or worse, you think this is funny or justified, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to women atheists being told they deserve to be raped.  If you’ve ever thought that rape was justified, you’re part of the problem.

What a price for not having a Y chromosome.

So, I’m a fat, white, American, male. I don’t get my morals from religion. I don’t think my wife should put out anytime I want sex. I don’t say horrible things to women, online or offline.  I don’t wish rape on women.  I don’t post home addresses to shut up people that I disagree with.

If you’re part of the problem, perhaps its time to re-evaluate yourself. Follow the words of Wil Wheaton, “Don’t be a dick.” Male, or otherwise.

The Eternal Fire

premarital-sex-300x229

I was raised contrary to many children raised within religion in that my parents would discuss sex openly.  We would discuss how good sex felt, in fact, a comparison that stands out from the discussion was to a much better feeling of releasing a sneeze.

We would talk about contraception.  We would talk about vaginas and penises.  We would talk about physical attraction, including no preconceived notion that we would be attracted to the opposite sex.

They weren’t gross or damaging to us.  They wouldn’t discuss their particular sex life, and perform acts in front of us, other than kissing, which let’s face it folks, isn’t a vulgar sex act.

Because of this normalization of sex in my thoughts, I also don’t get grossed out at the thought of parents having sex.

We were also taught that masturbation was great.  It was necessary.  It provided a healthy ‘out’ for our urges.

Along with all of that, we were also taught that the best prevention of disease or pregnancy was abstinence.  Now, this is important though… it was simply taught as the best not the only.

All that said, I did not wait until I was married.  My first intercourse experience was at 17 years of age.  Sure enough, it felt really good.  I guess you could say it was a hell of a thing.

So, to the meat and potatoes of this post, sorry for the long intro…

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. – Jude 1:7

If you desire to wait for marriage before having intercourse, that’s fine.  When you decide to judge others for premarital sex, that’s when it’s an issue.

Let me ask all the married religious people a question.  Was it really worth the wait?  Or perhaps it was painful, uncomfortable, and messy (as first time sex is for many)?

Let me ask the religious people that have been married more than once another question.  Was sex with the second partner worse?  Better?  Same?  Honestly, I would likely guess it was better, but I’m sure that’s up for debate and not the point of this dissertation.  I’d bet that just because you’d had sex before, it wasn’t worse.

My point is that the sex drive is necessary for the survival of a species and, with small percentage of exception (asexuals), we all experience it.  It’s really interesting that it sets in at its most powerful level during puberty.  A time when most of the religious would push the hardest to prevent an individual from having sex.  Don’t take my point as I support underage sex, I really don’t.  I have 2 children, both below the age of consent, and in the full throws of puberty, and we teach similarly to my parents.  Abstinence is best, but condoms and other protections if the urge is too great.

Why, if we are created by a deity, would we have such a powerful drive to create new life before we were married?  I know some will say “mysterious ways”, and others will say “we are being tested”.  I just don’t buy those answers.  Perhaps, just perhaps, we evolved to procreate at the most likely to be successful point in our short lives.  It fits.  Evolution has no real care for ’emotional maturity’.

Perhaps it’s time for people to view sex with a healthier attitude.  The bible certainly doesn’t provide a healthy attitude, as seen in the quote above, or the following:

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. – Ephesians 5:5

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:27-28

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. – Exodus 22:16-17

These seem pretty dire.  No heaven, mental adultery, buying your way out of premarital sex?  This is an unhealthy look at sex.  This creates paranoia.  Teaching these things to children is abuse.

Let’s get past this.  Let’s start a healthy dialog about sex.  Let’s help prevent disease and teen pregnancy.  Hammering your children with abstinence only sexual education has demonstrably the opposite result.

But my God says….

Now that the SCOTUS has decided that marriage, no matter genders involved, is protected nation wide, I’ve been watching the mayhem from those that disagree.

There are many gems, but this one in particular has stood out: Texas clerk won’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

In the name of truth and honesty in disclosure I’ve followed it through, and apparently her office will now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but that’s not the point, this discussion is about ‘religious freedom’.

The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems pretty clear from the text that the government can’t establish religion (you know, like “In God we Trust”, er wait….), or prohibit the free exercise of a persons religious beliefs (of course, there are limits, if your religion teaches that say women who are raped should be married to their rapists, the government really doesn’t allow someone to force that).

The issue at hand here is that a governmental employee, while functioning as a representative of the government really can’t establish religious reasons for providing government services.  In the case of Hood County Clerk Katie Lang (referenced in the link above), she isn’t issuing the license, the government is.  She’s simply the individual that handles the paperwork, as it were.

In the Quran it states “Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…” This is often used as the basis for Islamic women covering themselves.  What if someone working in the drivers license division stopped giving drivers licenses to women because they weren’t covered from head to toe?  Would that be exercising freedom of religion?

In the bible it states “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.”  What if the same clerk that is refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples required that women provide irrefutable proof of virginity before marriage in a mixed gender marriage?  Would that be exercising religious freedom?

Freedom requires that the government, not individuals, protect rights, that way everyone has a greater chance at being treated equally.

If you’re a representative of the government, then you must leave your personal views at the door, and pick them back up on the way out.

Love Whomsoever Thou Wilt

“Love all men, even your enemies; love them, not because they are your brothers, but that they may become your brothers.”
– Augustine of Hippo

The last time I remember experiencing a pure, unbridled joy for my fellow human beings was when Utah’s Amendment 3 was originally overturned in December of 2013. I was not joyful with a sense of victory, or triumph, or schadenfreude, but rather with the pure happiness of watching love celebrated so honestly and openly after being so long denied. I watched the TV news with elation as couple after couple after couple after couple kissed each other as if for the first and only time.

I know a great many who worship the god of The Bible and believe that homosexuality is wrong. I also know a great many who believe that God is the spiritual and physical embodiment of love. If your heart is filled with disgust, disappointment, or even hate with today’s SCOTUS announcement, take a moment to see how much joy, happiness, and love is being celebrated by those for whom the decision most affects.

To this outsider, it seems that God has changed his mind about a great many things since the first authoring of The Old Testament. Maybe this is another and He’s telling us with  bliss, jubilance, and, of course, Love.