Reinforcing the Monastic Walls

The Los Angeles Times reports that a panel of the California 4th District of Appeal has ruled that a Lutheran high school has the right to expel students for being gay. Apparently, it is not a business (despite accepting money to perform a service) and therefore does not have to obey civil rights laws. This sets a lovely precedent for religious schools setting up a monastic culture in which students, sent by their parents, have parts of their humanity repressed in an environment that teaches not about the world, but about a world based on the ideals of the people running the school. They will be taught that such and such a lifestyle is wrong and to be shunned. You know, sort of like terrorists, Nazis, Kim Jong Il, and so forth.

If I'm being alarmist it is because I am alarmed.

The Dream Fulfilled? Not quite...

...and I'm not sure I WANT it all to be fulfilled.

Yea, in honor of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday as well as the upcoming inauguration of this country's first black* president I am taking a moment to examine Dr. King's dream as stated in his speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. It seems that pundits, pastors and politicians are saying that Obama is the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream. I do not believe that this is so, and upon reading the speech again — I have not really done so since middle school — I find that there are a few points that I am not entirely comfortable with wandering about in the generally uplifting and inspiring speech.

This country has changed much for the better since 1963, when racial segregation was law, lynchings were commonplace, and the majority of white people seemed to think this was just fine. This was the atmosphere in which Dr. King gave his speech, and he gave it partially in his role as a Baptist minister. This explains, perhaps, why he chose to argue the way he did.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

My version of the dream has the creed changed to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are equal." I do not wish for creationism to be promoted.

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

This has, for the most part, come to pass. Racism lingers, but there is no longer a legal divide, and the generations since 1963 seem to be increasingly race-neutral. For a person used to gender neutral language, though, it is left to wonder why it is the sons and not the daughters, or simply the children.

"I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."

Mississippi is still contested territory for the forces of tolerance and those that would oppose them. It is better than it was then, but it has a very long way to go.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

One can argue that this has come to pass with Obama's election, but it seems to me that too many people are still judged by the color of their skin. Not large public-view things, of course, and not usually things in which a legal action may take place, but stealthily and in personal situations.

"And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Aye, he didn't acknowledge all genders, creeds and religions, as I would have done. I wonder if this was simply the shortsightedness of the era, or perhaps a limit to King's dream. I do not know enough about the man to consider what might be his view on the Equal Rights Amendment, but I am saddened by the fact that this amendment is still not law. I also wonder what he might think of the diversity of religion in America now, and in fact what he thought of the diversity of religion in the world then.

Dr. King's dream was a worthy and lofty goal for 1963, but we can do better in 2009. We can have a dream in which all people, of any race, of any religion, of any gender or no gender at all, of any creed, of any sexuality, can be treated as equals under laws that are fair in a society that values all of its constituents.


* Barack Obama is of mixed ethnicity. His mother, Ann Dunham, was an Irish-American from Kansas. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was a black African from Kenya. He seems to strongly take after his father's features. I don't mean to say that this precludes him from being "black", I just find it interesting.

Oh, and a little note about Huckabee

(originally posted 12/16/07)

He yesterday attacked Mitt Romney with this question: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

Although he quickly recanted, He should be publicly flayed for a way-below-the-belt attack that really, truly, HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

Benedicking around Mitt religion

(originally posted 12/7/07)

Last Week, former Massachusetts governor and current presidential rat-runner Mitt Romney delivered a speech that was likely meant to comfort the conservative base of his Republican party and smooth over his adherence to a non-mainstream religion. In it, he fielded some pretty glaring logical fallacies and attacked the non-religious and the idea of a secular state.

Also last week, former Hitler Youth and current head of the Catholic Church Joseph Ratzinger...I mean Pope Benedict XVI...issued an encyclical letter that fielded some pretty glaring logical fallacies and attacked the non-religious and the idea of a secular state.

The first gem in Romney's diatribe goes like this:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

How does freedom require religion again? I see how he would think that religion required freedom, as it opens the window and all that, but if it is true freedom then it equally opens the window for those who would have no religious belief. It's freedom, y'see. You're free. To believe or not, as it were. Incidentally, religion survived for thousands of years under totalitarian and monarchial rule, so I'm not seeing how religion requires freedom either. I suspect that Romney was just attempting to invoke fear of repressive states that officially reject religion, such as the USSR and the PRC. If so, I would like to remind him of states where religion is everything and the only thing, such as Iran and the Sudan. They're not free either, even though they have lots of religion.

Benedict's first little illogical statement is actually the subject of most of the letter. His encyclical is titled "Spe Salvi" (In hope we are saved or suchlike, excuse my rusty Latin), and it deals with the idea that hope is salvation, and therefore hope is faith, and therefore those who are without faith are without hope. Don't take it from me, you can read it if you want on the Vatican's website here. I was going to attempt to pull a quote from it, but Benedict is mostly too rambling and wordy for such a thing. Now, we all know people can live without faith and still have hope, hope that their family and friends will continue to be well, hope that the world will eventually be a better place. Benedict argues, through quotations from the apostle Paul, that the Ephesians were living in a "dark world, facing a dark future" because even though they had religion, it wasn't the Christian religion. Whatever. People were doing just fine before Christianity, and we will likely be doing fine long after it is gone. People who have never been Christians live with hope, and also live full lives in happy times. There are plenty of hopeful and happy Buddhists, Hindus, Neopagans...on down the line through every religion of the world and including complete lack of religion.

Back to Mitt.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings."

So Mitt has completely failed to encounter other world religions, despite the fact that there are many in the United States. Mitt seems to think that the only religions that exist are ones that derive from the Abrahamic faiths. He completely missed the 17-ish percent of Americans who ascribe to no such faith. I recently noticed a beautiful Hindu temple being built north of my home city, and I know several people affiliated with Buddhist sects around hereabouts. Romney has completely ignored them, as he has ignored or marginalized the 15+ percent of Americans who profess no religion.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

I'm not entirely sure where to start digging in here. There are so many places. Romney begins with an affirmation of the separation of church and state, but he ends this paragraph —and goes through the next— with sledgehammers to that barrier. He then, in the second little clause of this paragraph, poses straw man argument. Always be suspicious of people who will use "some say" or "some believe" or, in this case "taken by some" in a persuasive argument, as it is meant to mislead by misrepresenting the opponent's position. He then moves on attack secularism as a religion, when in fact secularism is simply the assertion that religion should be separate from government. There is nothing to worship there, therefore not a religion. Got it, Mitt? And how exactly is starting a new religion wrong, anyway?

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."

Both of those phrases came into public use long after this country's founders were dead. "In god we trust" first appeared on a coin in 1864 in response to pressures from Christians during the Civil War. It was adopted by Congress as a national motto almost a century later (1956), probably to differentiate our country from the officially atheistic USSR during the hotter, earlier parts of the Cold War. The "under god" phrase was tacked on to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by an act of Congress under pressure from the Knights of Colombus and some outspoken clergy. The common use of both of the phrases, then, date from the dramatic swing to the right the country took in the '50's, which are unfortunately still considered a golden age by conservatives.
Regarding elimination of religion from the public square: Would you really believe that you were going to be judged not based on religion if there were crosses and copies of the ten commandments all over the courthouse?

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty."

Hello, push for teaching creationism! Sheesh. Who is this "god who gave us liberty"? Is it John Locke, who wrote of it in his Two Treatises of Government? Liberty is a human concept, exactly as its opposite is.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

Do we now? Liberty is completely an indulgence of government. If there is a totalitarian government, scrutinizing the daily lives of its citizens, there can be little liberty. Government regularly takes away the liberty of its citizens who have been convicted of crimes. Mitt's little idea here is a really and truly dangerous one, as it philosophically allows government to do any damn thing it wants and just say "Sure, you're pent up in a cage here, but God gave you liberty, so you have it. Even if you can't use it."

"No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty."

This man has no grasp of history. He forgets the many wars that were fought for liberty by the Dutch, South Americans, Chinese, Russians, Zulu, and nearly eveyt other nation on Earth. He also has forgotten America's wars this century which had nothing to do with preserving freedom, like the invasion of Nicaragua. The biggest falsehood in this paragraph is the notion that we took nothing from Germany or Japan at the end of the second world war...We certainly did take treasure (reparations, favored trading status), land (for military bases, see Rammstein or Okinawa), and oaths of fealty (forcing West Germany to join NATO, and the security treaty signed by Japan as a provision of the ending of U.S. occupation of that nation).

Romney draws to a close by criticizing the countries of Europe for having large cathedrals but dwindling numbers of faithful, and lashing out at militant Islam. He then tells a story about the founding fathers kneeling to pray together, and his penultimate sentence is this: "In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light."
The "divine author of liberty"? John Locke again, this time divine?

I'm so done with Mitt. May he never be president of anything ever.

So back to Benedick.

"To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope"

Only god can create justice, eh? Not doing that great a job, is he? Or is the concept of justice completely within the eye of the beholder? I'm pretty sure it is. Benedict might think it was just if everyone was forcibly converted to Catholicism. I don't quite see it so.

No wonder it's taken me so long to complete this little critical essay...I am so sick of both of its subjects. Mitt Romney can go stick his head in a pig as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that Benedict will be regarded as a terrible Pope, especially after that patience and kindness of his predecessor.