The Hypothetical Progressive Pope

I’ve been trying out hypothetical as a way to show believers where their beliefs originate. The best example I’ve worked out is directed specifically toward Catholics. I ask:

If a future Pope reversed the Church’s position on gay marriage, would you also reverse your position on gay marriage?

The word Pope could be substituted for “religious leader” to make this less Catholicism-centric, but the Catholic Church is fairly unique in that it’s doctrine trumps even the Bible in the eyes of its congregation. Seeing how the Pope is the infallible spokesperson for the Church, his word matters immensely.

Now, let’s look at what the possible answers mean. If a believer who opposes gay marriage answers in the affirmative, they show that their assessment of morality and their opinions of what is or isn’t discriminatory are based solely on authority. Whatever the Church thinks is how they think. The Pope is the Borg Queen in this scenario. If the believer instead says they would maintain their opposition of gay marriage against the Church, then we can know for sure that their belief is in fact a product of their own reasoning--at the cost of being a "bad Catholic."

Neither option is at all palatable to the believer, so if you pose the question, expect a refusal to answer. Most often I get, “the Church would never change their position so the question is moot.” That may be, but claiming certain knowledge of the future is a childish dodge for people with a distaste for hypothetical. Nevertheless we can’t force an answer out of them. This isn’t the Inquisition. (Speaking of which, poor Galileo would say that the Church sometimes, eventually, changes their position.) Simply posing the question is enough for the believer to formulate an answer, even if they see the trap set for verbalization. Consider the point made.

Gays Aren't Sinful. Sin Isn't Even A Thing

I don't know who to give credit to but this is great...click to enlarge

If any of my bible readers think this is inaccurate, please let me know in the comments.

How Much Must I Boycott?

Remember when everyone made a fuss over Chick-fil-A? When the gay-friendly thing to do was to eat less chicken because the head of the company voiced his opinion on who should marry whom? I was a bit torn on the issue, myself. Boycotting a business based on corporate executive editorializing seems overboard, but when it came out that a fave fast food of mine was contributing funds to anti-gay organizations...I admit, I was bummed. I hated to think that even a nickel of my $5.99 went to marginalizing a community.

I bring this up now because of a recent story that will likely matter even less to you. A comic book I’d be interested in reading has hit enough political controversy that it might not see light and will surely be delayed. The future author of the comic, Orson Scott Card, is a kooky Mormon who doesn’t support gay marriage and thinks global warming is a shame. So, does this alone mean his work should be censored?

Image via Wired.com; Chris Samnee, DC Comics

Seriously, I’m asking you. The Superman title Card will author has lost an illustrator and some distribution due to the controversy. He’s written one of my favorite books, Ender’s Game, which as an upcoming movie that will likely suffer from his views in much the same way. On one hand, I’m happy that there is public consequences for stupid beliefs because it could shame others into not believing them. On the other hand, I’d rather folks dismiss beliefs because they realize they are stupid and not simply because they are unpopular. Then again, it could be said the measure of the stupidity of a belief is a measure of how poorly they reflect the culture...which is it’s own kind of popularity contest.

I think I’ve decided to separate the work from the man. I figure if I stop using and enjoying everything that socially conservative and evangelical people produce or support--my options will become very limited. After all, it’s not like these guys were Nazi’s.

P.S. Ironically, this was written while listening to Wagner.

P.P.S. When the product and the opinions of those in charge are intermingled, I see a greater conflict. The Boy Scouts, who advertise themselves as a ethical guide for young men, should not have policies highlighting bigotry or exclusionism. Likewise, churches, with whatever moral value they may hold, should never let pedophilia slide.

P.P.P.S. Are postscripts just for letters or are blogs okay?

Attempts at Humor on a Friday

If you follow me on Twitter, you know that I occasionally think of something funny and then post this crap instead.

"Eat more beef." works as an anti-Chic-fil-a campaign and as a gay slogan.

"I'm totally Darwinning this debate!" ~ Richard Dawkins

Ironically, psychic mediums usually wear a "large."

A priest is like a ventriloquist with a dummy who has laryngitis.

One of the only things atheists and Christians agree on is the metaphor that Christians are sheep.

Jesus made his disciples "fishers of men," which is ironically a great name for a gay bar.

Atheist sandwiches are easy to swallow, and never full of baloney. (Slogan for my new line of infi-delis)

The Bible audiobook would make more sense if read by a dyslexic gypsy with Tourettes.

Christian's should love gays! They almost never have abortions.

Morality Week: Biblical "Morality"

Christians tend to argue one of two positions.

1. Religion provides our morality through scripture.
2. Morality is objective and we all have a God-given sense of right and wrong.

The first is pretty straight forward, and I’ve found that the second eventually leads to the first. For example, a theist can argue a moral value against rape and murder is universal and use this as evidence that the value originates with God. Yet the same theist sees a similar moral truth in an issue like homosexuality, which is far from universal. In the U.S., roughly half the population is in favor of gay marriage, which implies they don’t find gay sex immoral, while the other half votes against it. If we are supposed to have a sense of God’s morality, why do so many not have said sense on homosexuality? The theist may argue we simply ignore our sense in supporting gay rights, but in doing so they presume to know how everyone in the world feels. I can only know how I feel. I feel that hot man-on-man love (or better yet, woman-on-woman love) is not immoral.

Christians use the Bible to define their morality and claim the values within as moral truths. Below are moral values taken from the Bible that otherwise have no reasoning behind them.

• Having other gods is immoral.
• Making graven images is immoral.
• Using God’s name in vain is immoral.
• Working on Sunday is immoral.
• Fornication is immoral.
• Homosexuality is immoral.
• Masturbating is immoral.

I could get into the really strange morality-guiding rules in the Bible, (it’s immoral to wear wool and linen woven together apparently) but I’d rather stick with the stuff the least amount of theists will argue about. The first three would never be immoral if not for the Bible. They are simply rules to keep you believing once you already believe. The Sabbath rule is arbitrary no matter how you look at it. So far, the list has been taken directly from the gold standard of morality as argued by nearly every theist I’ve engaged--the ten commandments. The last three make certain sex acts immoral. Without the Bible, I can think of no reason for these to be immoral. If you have a reason, let me know in the comments.

As is the theme of Morality Week, morality should be based on reasoning, not based on a book written well over a thousand years ago. Equating scripture to moral truth, using moral truth to prove God, and using God to prove the validity of scripture is typical theist circular logic. Worse, the idea of moral truth needing no explaination is dangerous. A theist doesn’t just believe abortion in morally wrong, they know it is evil. This gnostic morality is what leads to clinic bombings. If I knew I was stopping evil at the pleasure of the Almighty, who know’s what I’d be tempted to do. I realize clinic bombers are a rare extreme, probably driven by a mental disease more than religion, but to a lesser extent this moral gnostism is what ruins many families with gay children.

Who cares if you’re born that way?

I recently read that Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon said in an interview that her homosexuality was a choice. Not surprisingly, this got the various gay rights groups flustered seeing how their campaign against right-wing oppression partially depends on homosexuality not being a choice. According to them, gays were, are, and forever will be born that way.

Even though no “gay gene” has been found, I accept that for many, homosexuality is not a choice. I have no reason to disbelieve such a claim, after all, I didn’t choose to be heterosexual. That said, I am confused as to why GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) and others would even care about the “born this way” mantra. It’s a decent song, but a lousy defense.

If it was determined that gays were biologically predisposed to be gay, I wouldn’t be surprised if further research would find pedophiles have a genetic attraction to young people. Or even that serial killers are wired to get off on killing. (In fact, research may already show this.) Being born with a tendency towards a behavior doesn’t give you carte blanche to carry out said behavior...so what’s the point?

Homosexuality shouldn’t need a defense. Being gay isn’t wrong because it is genetic. It isn’t wrong because there is no victim. Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect society. To be honest, being gay isn’t right either. It is morally neutral, just like being straight. Pedophilia is wrong because children can’t understand consent in terms of their own sexuality. They are taken advantage of and thereby victims. And serial killing is wrong for obvious reasons.

GLAD should hope we don’t find a gene (or series of genes) for homosexuality. While there is no secular reason to condemn gays, the holy books say different. The believers could be faced with a crisis of faith and conscience in deciding whether or not to abort their unborn gay child. I wonder which hypocrisy they would embrace.