Defending DOMA (For Fame And Fortune)

This is from the old blog, but thanks to the political cycle, it’s absolutely current.

In the constant chase for headlines
Given fast-approaching deadlines
Politicians fight each other for the top spot on the news
In this rough-and-tumble scrimmage
As they fight to hone their image
Some conservatives may think they’ve found an issue they can use

It’s that goddamn gay agenda
The republicans expend a
Lot of energy in fighting, as they pander to their base
If a legal stance looks funny
Often, following the money
Shows the underlying logic (as, of course, the present case)

In this mess, if you’re litigious
Then you’re probably religious
And it’s blasphemous that marriage should be offered up to gays
And republicans get boners
Over big financial donors
(If the dollars were sufficient, why, I’m sure they’d swing both ways)

It’s a match that’s made in heaven
For Two Thousand and Eleven
As the campaign is upon us and we’re choosing sides, of course
Let the Democrats disparage
Us, we’re standing up for marriage!
It’s a sacred institution… like Republican divorce!

NPR’s Morning Edition reports on the political posturing surrounding the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Conservative Republicans are on the wrong side of history here, but it looks like they are hoping they are on the right side of their own base. I’ve argued over marriage issues for years, and have never yet found an objection to same-sex marriage that did not boil down to a religious view. From my perspective, then, it comes down to a First Amendment issue: if the government takes a stand opposing same-sex marriage, it favors one religious view over others.

It’s not a matter of what is good for the children. My lesbian neighbors have raised a fine son, despite not being recognized as a real family; real concern for the well-being of children would lead to support for gay families. It’s not that marriage is designed to promote procreation; my sister-in-law is hoping for her third childless marriage. Since she is heterosexual, no one has a problem with that–least of all, the Republican front-runners, who [as of the writing of this verse] sport more ex-wives than candidates.

It’s not even freedom of religion. There are a good many churches that recognize, welcome, and celebrate same-sex marriages. These conservative Republicans would want these churches overruled.

No, it’s money. There is money to be had by fighting on the wrong side of this battle. If that money can keep a handful of politicians in the headlines for a bit longer, they can keep the positions of power they hold. When they eventually are swept aside, that same money will be available for speeches and appearances. Ex-senators and ex-representatives will make more for one speech than I do in a year, railing against the moral decline of civilization.

Meh. I’ll take that, if I can go to my neighbors’ wedding.

Spare The Rod

We tell you, in the name of God
That when you choose to spare the rod
You spoil the child.
The holy word, from God above,
Is “use a stick to show your love”
So just go wild.
A God who drowned the Earth in flood
Won’t mind if you should draw some blood
It’s fair and just.
So beat your child! Start today!
The bible doesn’t say you may
It says you must!
So if they fight (as children will)
Just beat them with a cane until
They get along
And if a kid should end up dead,
You followed what the bible said
And can’t be wrong.

From CNN, Anderson Cooper reports on parents who follow the book “To train up a child”, which advocates regular and severe punishment–beatings with a rod–for young children (video at link).

In His Own Image

They say that God created Man
As part of an enormous plan,
And did so in His image, cos he loves us, every one.
When men of God discriminate
And treat their fellow men with hate
They do so with the knowledge it’s what Jesus would have done.
When righteous men, in righteous ways
Hate atheists, or Jews, or gays,
Or Muslims, pagans, redheads, southpaws, foreigners, or Voodoo
I know at first it may seem odd,
But clearly, you’ve created God
In your own image, when you find he hates the same folks you do.

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” –Annie Lamott

Sunday Schooling

In honor of the completely irrelevant pre-season win by the Browns last night, a reposting of a musing on the popularity of those competing Sunday activities…

Predictably, we see reports
Of godly, fundamental sorts
Complaining that we worship sports
Instead of god

It happens once or twice a year
When tournaments or playoffs near
And empty pews are cause to fear
The other squad

The Lord commands for all to see
To “have no gods ahead of me”
Which clearly makes idolatry
A mortal sin

Their future hanging by a thread,
They claim that fans have been misled
They know, if they went head to head
They wouldn’t win

It should not surprise anyone to find, on CNN’s Belief Blog, a report on christian churches coveting the fanaticism of… well, fans. Sports fans. Apparently, idolatrous worship of real, live athletes is getting in the way of worshipping imaginary beings.

“That’s … one of the major things I decry in my book,” said Tom Krattenmaker, author of “Onward Christian Athletes,” who’s based in Portland, Oregon. “The lack of that sort of prophetic distance from sports or the willingness to critique sports, the lack of setting priorities so that the worship of God is more important than this idolatrous relationship with sports.”

Sports worship, of course, predates christianity by centuries, but that doesn’t fit the narrative:

“There have been changes… in Christianity, particularly in evangelicalism over the years, and as sports has increased its popularity and increased its ways of invading our lives,” said Shirl James Hoffman, author of “Good Game: Christianity and the Culture of Sport.”

“Instead of exploring creative ways sport might serve true religious purposes such as spiritual growth and enrichment, the Christian community has seized on sport as a tool of status enhancement, advertising, and evangelism,” he says.

Maybe it’s because I have the Onion News Network on TV right now, but I’m tempted to think that this report recognizes the absurdity, and simply hangs it out there.

Sport is huge in human history. What an incredible achievement, to reach a point where we have comfortably met our immediate and future needs to an extent that allows us to compete with one another, not for food or shelter, but for sport! This, more than religion, is the marker of humanity. As Friedrich Schiller put it, “Man… is only completely a man when he plays.”

I know many people who find sports obsession to be silly. Perhaps. We can probably reach near 100% agreement that other people’s sports obsessions are silly. But in this particular war over weekend activities, I know which side gets my support.

Oh, Wait.

My God is pretty self-assured, and quite convinced He’s right.
He made me in His image, so He’s green-eyed, blond, and white;
And He’s very, very wrathful with the folks who disagree;
He’ll hold a grudge for centuries—Oh, wait—that might be me.

He’s insecure enough to want to hear how much you love Him
And He never will forgive you if there’s someone else above Him;
He’ll jealously react to any threat to His domain
By smiting all His enemies—Oh, wait—that’s me again.

He’ll make the world a better place for those who think like Him
For those in opposition, well, the situation’s grim;
He’ll call jihad, or else crusade—some form of Holy War
Because He knows He’s always right—Oh, wait—that’s me once more.

He’s handsome, bearded, steely-eyed, deep-voiced and somewhat haughty
So wonderful, his naughty bits are never seen as naughty
But perfectly proportioned, grand and firm and never shrinking,
A miracle of awesomeness—Oh, wait—that’s wishful thinking.

****

From the old digs, a million years ago. Originally a response to a British poll that found (surprise!) that people anthropomorphize god, and see Him as a “him”, complete with male gender. But of course god looks and acts like us–sometimes it seems god’s only function is to externally justify our internal evils.

Certum Est, Quia Impossibile

I had a dream about this one the other day: I was “Uncle Cuttlefish”, singing this song to a group of young campers, who joined in on the “Certum est” parts. One of the campers, little Suzie, explained about the bit in Latin, which translates to “it is certain, because it is impossible”, a doctrine of the tremendous importance of faith. Faith is a virtue–the more impossible a thing is, the more important it is that you believe it. (In the dream, another camper brought up the fact that creationists often say “it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in god”, and was immediately escorted away from the campfire song circle.) Yes, I have weird dreams. I almost never remember them… this may be the reason.

The melody I use for it is very close to G&S’s “Tit-Willow”. If you are not familiar with it, this version skips a verse, but the performance more than makes up for it.

You have to admit, this sounds pretty far-fetched
Certum est, quia impossibile
But my mem-o-ry has it indelibly etched
Certum est, quia impossibile
There once was a garden, with Adam and Eve
Along came a serpent, with plans to deceive—
What part of this tale am I s’posed to believe?
Certum est, quia impossibile

Lot’s Wife was transformed to a pillar of salt
Certum est, quia impossibile
The bible implies she herself was at fault
Certum est, quia impossibile
The sinning in Sodom, it made the Lord sore-eyed
She didn’t obey; now she’s sodium chloride—
A message which all of the “sinners of yore” eyed
Certum est, quia impossibile

Some children once pestered a man with no hair
Certum est, quia impossibile
Who prayed for revenge, and so God sent two bears
Certum est, quia impossibile
Which mauled all the kids in a terrible fight
And killed every one, with a blow or a bite,
So that next time, the children will act more polite
Certum est, quia impossibile

Then God gave us Jesus, to die for our sins
Certum est, quia impossibile
To re-write the books, so a new age begins
Certum est, quia impossibile
And Jesus was tortured and nailed to a cross
To render us clean, through his terrible loss
(Or maybe his dad was just showing who’s boss)
Certum est, quia impossibile

And ever since then, why, the message has spread
Certum est, quia impossibile
That mankind will live, because Jesus was dead
Certum est, quia impossibile
I have to believe them, they urge and implore,
For ethics, for morals, for peace evermore…
Then battle each other, in bloodthirsty war
Certum est, quia impossibile

It’s a nice simple form, in 3/4 time; feel free to add your own verses! And please, sing it around campfires, and say hi to little Suzie if you see her.

Evidence And Faith

The evidence for God is in the universe around us,
In the oceans, in the mountains, in the skies;
You can see His holy fingerprints in galaxies and atoms;
You need only learn to open up your eyes.
The evidence for God is seen in everything in nature—
This has always been accepted by the wise;
But the evidence that shows there was no Adam, and no Eden,
Only tells us all that, now and then, God lies.

Via NPR, a story today, Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve, reminds us that evangelical christians (let alone all christians) are not a monolithic group. Not all evangelicals, for instance, believe the story of Adam and Eve.

[S]ome conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: “That would be against all the genomic evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all.”

Not exactly a radical position to take for those of us who don’t hold the bible as bedrock, but Venema’s position runs counter to central tenets of his church.

And Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century. Another one is John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently. He says it’s time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence.

Now, it’s one thing to question some parts of the bible. But (as the NPR story makes clear) this particular part is the cornerstone of christianity itself. No original sin, no need for redemption, no reason for Jesus. This is a case where many christian sects make a very particular claim, one which if taken literally (which they do) is falsified by research in genetics.

I’ve known christians who believe that “god wrote two books–the bible and the universe”, and that we can reconcile the two by recognizing myth, story, and parable. But literalism does not have this wiggle room. One or the other “book” must be wrong.

It was easier to be a literalist before evolutionary genetics came along.

Untested Belief

I’ve been fooled by illusions
And, in my confusion,
Seen things that are simply not there.
My memory distorted,
I’ve sometimes reported
False “facts”, as I now am aware

When the truth is revealed
Of how far I’m afield
I am shocked to discover my error
But the evidence shows
So that everyone knows
And I’ll reach a conclusion that’s fairer

If I’m liable to make
Such a blatant mistake
When there’s evidence there for pursuing
I could never deny
There’s a likelihood, I
Have some other beliefs worth reviewing

My point, to be brief—
Unexamined belief,
No matter how firmly invested
Could be right, could be wrong
But remains, all along
Nothing more, and no less, than untested.

So, yeah, I watched the Discovery show “Curiosity” last night, and the brief discussion following the show, and I wanted to throw a shoe through the television. Fortunately, cuttlefish don’t wear shoes, so the tv was spared. Sean M. Carroll did a great job (even though he says his great concluding remarks were left on the cutting room floor), and I applaud him. As always, though, I really wish there had been another scientist there, representing experimental psychology.

As is often the case, the god that the theologians believed in was “transcendent” and untestable. Carroll, quite correctly, kept trying to get at whether this god ever intervened–ever mucked around with the observable universe–but they did not fall for it (although one claimed that the universe simply would not exist without god). And without a claim of effect, physics has nothing about god to test.

But. I’d like to have seen someone there able to explore not the physics of the universe, but the psychology of belief (and no, not Shermer). The theologians (and some clips of physicists) obviously held their beliefs in god strongly; what do they know of how we come to believe? (I am using “belief” very broadly here, including evidence-based and faith-based beliefs)

We believe things, as physicists often do, because the data point to them. But humans are not perfect perceivers; we sometimes believe things that the evidence actually opposes, because we misperceive the evidence (N-rays are a fun example). If, when there is actual evidence to be had, we still sometimes get it wrong, why on earth should we be more accurate in the absence of evidence? The foundation for the theologians’ belief is the flimsiest house of cards imaginable, yet they pretend an authority and “invite Hawking to the table”. Sorry, no, that’s the kiddie table.

Bishops, And Pawns

Via Kevin Zelnio on twitter, the story of a former bishop with a problem. His laptop contains child pornography, including images of torture.

When I read the headline, my first thought was “Again?” Didn’t I already write about a bishop? Well, yeah. Twice.

First, an arch-bishop of New York, covering up the abuses of priests:

I am the Bishop, the moral authority,
The good of my flock is my highest priority
Unless (or until) there’s a Shepherd accused,
And a lamb from my flock is among the abused.

I am the Bishop; to me they will come,
Both Shepherd and Sheep (because people are dumb)
I’m trusted to do what is just, what is right,
To head off a scandal, and keep things from sight.

I am the Bishop; the power is mine,
The law is of earth, but the issue’s divine
It’s morally righteous to hide the report,
And to fight and appeal when they take us to court.

I am the Bishop. The transcripts disclosed
I created a smokescreen when duly deposed;
I watched for my shepherds, and helped them escape
From those cruel allegations of beatings and rape.

I am the Bishop—Archbishop, New York;
I won’t admit shame, like in Dublin or Cork,
Here, cases are fewer, convictions are less—
It’s to me, not the cops, to whom Shepherds confess!

I am the Bishop, so I can forgive—
They’ll surely be punished, but not while they live.
The civil authorities think it’s a scam
But I am the Bishop; I don’t give a damn

I am the Bishop; I’ll sink straight to Hell,
With most of my Shepherds beside me, as well,
Where Satan’s the judge; no one grants an appeal…
But I am the Bishop. I know it’s not real.

Then, a bit later, in Philadelphia, a story of the review process intended to hide prevent abuse:

I am the Bishop, the first in the line
When reviewing a case, the decision is mine;
If I choose, I will forward the case to the board—
Most often, I don’t do a thing (thank the Lord!)

I am the Bishop; the Board of Review
Are my people, who do what I tell them to do
In each of the cases my Board made a call
They decided the case had no substance at all

I am the Bishop, the man you can trust—
Well, can is inaccurate; really, you must
Just ask me your questions; I give you my word
To give every detail that I want to be heard

I am the Bishop; I see in the news
They are calling for new, independent reviews!
It’s simply outrageous, to treat us this way
And put private Church business on public display

I am the Bishop; I know what we did—
How much is now public; how much is still hid
There’s a chance you’ve been actively kept unaware—
But I am the Bishop. I really don’t care.

How many rogue individuals does it take, before it’s a systematic problem?

Responses, Responses

It’s your right to come together
It’s your right to join and pray
It’s your right to go to Houston
To the Astrodome today

It’s your first amendment freedom;
Just remember, when you do,
That the same applies to others
When they’re criticizing you.

It’s my right to call you foolish
It’s my right to say you’re wrong
It’s my right to disagree with you
In poetry or song

You have every right to worship
You have every right to speak
But you do not have immunity
From secular critique

It’s your right to call me sinful
And to say I’m bound for hell
Just as long as every other voice
Can have their say as well

In the NYTimes, Op-Ed contributor Paul Horwitz writes “How to respond to Rick Perry and ‘The Response’“. It’s a nice piece, arguing that attempts to keep religion out of the public sphere are misguided. Not because religion has any sort of special privilege in guiding public officials, but because attempts to keep religion “private” come at too great a cost:

by trying to banish religion from the public sphere, Mr. Perry’s critics end up cutting themselves out of the debate. When religion is viewed as a fundamentally private matter, the natural corollary is to think that it is inappropriate to criticize someone’s faith.

We have also seen that those who do criticize faith matters are seen as militant, boorish, dicks.

This double standard needs to end. If religion can’t be forbidden in our public debates, even for elected officials, neither should it be immune from public criticism. And in the case of Mr. Perry and “The Response,” there are good reasons to be critical.

Horwitz focuses on The Response, but the message applies much more broadly.

I personally like it when public officials flaunt their religion in public. But then, satirical writing requires a diet rich in public stupidity.