A house divided...

In a strange way, I'm finding the aftermath of the US election almost as interesting as the election itself. Moreso, in some ways, because I can't predict how this is going to turn out.

Alongside the euphoria and delirium that comes with electing a black man to the nation's highest office, comes the hate, fear and ugliness that has spread across the nation, and can be summed up quite simply:

In North Carolina, four students at the state university admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." (via Alternet)

But the cavalcade of nasty doesn't stop there, kittens. Alongside the groundbreaking dismissal of racism was the ringing endorsement of homophobia. It was a sight to see, and the backlash has managed to more deeply entrench the culture wars.

There's a lot out there, but I think I'll show some balls and call out Chuck Norris. His article at Town Hall lists a long series of stupid, short-sighted, foolish, wrong and unacceptable attacks on people of faith who supported Prop. 8. Many have been independently corroborated, and so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Gay rights supporters are being shitheads. Your shitheadedness is not helping, and it's also wrong. Get your shit together and fight this fight with words, kindness and ideas.

Having said that, Chuckie goes off the rails:

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

Bullshit, dude. See the previous link, you hypocritical asshole.

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics.

Funny thing, here, and I didn't even notice it on the first readthrough. Chuck recognizes that the activists seek civil rights, and he still doesn't think they should have them. I think he needs a better toupee. This one is cutting off the oxygen to his brain

How fucked up and hateful do you have to be to recognize that these people have the right to marry, and you get to deny it because buttsex is icky? There's also the delightful inability to see the inconsistency that while being mean to Christians is wrong, being mean to fags is Kool & The Gang. I also like that Christians are crying foul at the use of boycotts to draw attention to those who supported this ugly piece of business. "It's just not fair! People could lose their jobs!" To which I say, suck it up, Princess, pun absofuckinlutely intended.

I posted this on facebook, and a friend of mine lit into me. He's from Canada, I remind you.

GIVE ME A BREAK. They have human rights!!! Marriage is a religious union which most (Not all) of these protesters reject. They have a right to civil unions and all the rights of any other couples in that state, adoption, sharing of medical benefits. Their are hate laws in place to punish those who harm or hurt someone due to their sexual orientation. Just because someone does not agree with Homosexuality does not mean that they hate them and you calling anyone who disagrees with Homosexuality a Homophobe is no different or less bigoted than someone who disagrees with Homosexuality calling a gay person a fag! There are extremists in both camps but everyone should have the right to their opinion without being called names! Their struggle for what they believe to be their rights?!?! is no where near the struggle of Black Americans and likening the two is ludicrous and shallow. Gay activist should apologize to the Black community for diminishing their struggle.

This is how I responded. I don't know if he's read it, and I had to spread it over three posts, because I got all wordy:

Chris, there is are two fundamental issues I have with your argument, and they can be dealt with pretty quickly.

First, marriage is NOT necessarily a religious union. Though I did get married in a church, it wasn't legal until the Province said it was. That piece of paper, not some words said by some guy who has never been married and is not allowed to marry, said in the name of some guy who supposedly never married, is what makes me married. The state decides who gets married, not the church, the synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever.

Secondly, there are VERY clear parallels between gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans. There is a direct link between racism and homophobia. Quite simply, blacks don't choose to be black, and gays don't choose to be gay. Do you remember when you decided to be straight? Honestly, who would choose to be a second class citizen, denied the right to live in security with the person you love, to be threatened, hated, feared, insulted and attacked? What is particularly bad is that in California, gays had a right STRIPPED from them. They were able to marry, and then they weren't. And I think any marriages performed in California were annulled.

Homophobia, like racism, need not be overt to exist. Simply saying that they're different, not like us, and do not have the same rights as us is discriminatory. You can call what they do a sin all you want. You can say that god thinks they're an abomination. That's your right. I have the right to say that you're hiding your prejudice behind your god. Free speech swings both ways. And my calling those who would withhold the rights of others bigots is not the same as someone calling someone a fag. You can change your opinions, but not your sexual orientation. I insult your ideas, not you.

And they do have human rights. Rights which have been stripped in California, and are not recognized in most of the rest of the Union. Rights that have been withheld for religious reasons.

Religion was used to justify slavery. It was used to justify religious wars. It was used to deny women the right to vote. It was used to justify miscegenation laws. And it is used to justify the denial of the right to marry the person you love.

Quite simply, my brother would be a second class citizen in the US, because of something he can't change. It is not exactly like the Jim Crow laws, but only because homosexuals weren't forcibly relocated to be farm animals. Civil unions are "separate but equal".

Sorry, dude. It is bigotry. I'm glad we don't have it here in Canada.

Congratulations on your black president, US. Good luck with the rest of your prejudices.

Hate Speech

I've dealt with this subject before, but it bears another visit, simply because it's so complicated (wonderful turn of phrase, that), and because I have an impetus. Once again, it's the jeebnuts at Christian Worldview Network who provide my blog fodder. From Bill Muehlenberg:

If nothing else, the steady stream of madness and moral decrepitude one encounters on a daily basis at least keeps life interesting. It is hard to stay bored in such an environment. Consider as an example this quite recent news item...

I agree. It's a common thread in my writing. Oh, but you meant liberals. My bad.

...“A Michigan man is seeking millions in compensation from two Christian publishers for emotional distress and mental instability he received from Bible's referring to homosexuality as a sin. Bradley LaShawn Fowler says his constitutional rights were infringed by both Zondervan Publishing Co. and Thomas Nelson Publishing who he claims deliberately caused homosexuals to suffer by misinterpretation of the Bible. Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson. Zondervan has stated that he's suing the wrong party whether his claims are credible or not because the publishing house does not translate the Bible nor do they own the copyright for the translations.”...

Well, he can't very well sue god, can he? I'm conflicted here, because he has a point, as stupid as it is. I've said before that I'm not a fan of censoring anybody, and I'm increasingly uncomfortable with human rights cases, and I've never liked frivolous lawsuits. There's no fucking way this guy should win, even if he does have a small point. And here's that point.

Here's a working definition of hate speech from Canada's criminal code:

Canada's Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

By this definition, the Old Testament is clearly hate speech. Not just for gays, but for women, a laundry list of other religions and ethnicities (fortunately largely wiped out by the Canaanites, and therefore not around to make complaints to human rights tribunals), for violators of the ten (or so) commandments, and for those who disregard The Law (which, the more you read it, looks more and more like a cosmic game of Simon Says). The New Testament is marginally better, but still not compassionate or understanding, and though Jesus was more sunshine and puppy dogs than Old Testament god, he still says some pretty mean-spirited shit.

The thing about hate speech is that it is a call to action, a means to punish people for differences. It's one thing to say that gay people are breaking god's law. Feel free to say it. The problem is that violating god's law comes with a) a prescripted penalty, usually involving crowds with stones, and b) eternal torment, which c) might cause mental anguish if you actually take that shit seriously.

The Bible clearly exposes people to hatred, contempt and even violence. It's dangerous shit, and anyone who tells you otherwise isn't reading the best parts. And so, the Bible is hate speech.

The problem is that I'm not a big fan of censorship, and while this lawsuit raises some valid concerns and points out that religious texts are texts, and therefore subject to the law (no matter what the jeebnuts might say, and I know what they'd say), the law has very little to say about what you can say. Or at least, it ought to.

But while I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous, wasteful and wrong, I've little else in common with the besieged Christians over at CWN.

There are many responses that come to mind here about this bizarre scenario. Let me mention just a few.

Firstly, this is yet another example of the fact that we live in an overwhelmingly litigious society. We now live in age in which everybody is suing somebody for something. We have gone mad with lawsuits, court cases, tort laws, and all sorts of often unnecessary litigation. The motto seems to be, “Don’t just get angry, get even, and sue the living daylights out of the guy”.

Quite right. You don't have the right to remain unoffended. Suck it up, princess (gay joke intended).

This case is also an example of a world in which rights-talk has gone mad. Everyone everywhere seems to be insisting on this right or that right. There are now rights for everything it seems. And these rights are simply being pulled out of the hat. They never existed before, but people are just making them up as they go along.

Actually, as I've said before, the question has never been what rights are, but who gets them. Clearly the gays don't, we wish women and inferior races didn't, and the damn Papists only get theirs because they were here first. Oh, and though the Jews killed Christ, they're still God's Chosen People, so I guess, maybe, we'll let them have some too.

Perhaps one of the most strange and nefarious rights to come on the scene lately is the right not to be offended. I am not sure where this idea came from. It certainly is not found in any major human rights declarations or national constitutions. But it has become all the rage to expect not be offended by anything or anyone.

You know what they say about a stopped clock? But don't worry, it doesn't last:

But I would have thought that daily life in a fallen world will mean offences will arise all the time. If you are in a hurry, a red light will seem offensive. So should we sue the government for red lights? A Coke lover may be offended by a Pepsi. A Manchester United supporter may be offended by any rival soccer club. A nudist may be offended at clothes. A Hindu may well be offended by the exclusive nature of Christian truth claims.

Or by the exclusive truth claims of any religion, numbnuts. What makes your god so special? And what the hell is this thing about the fallen world. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were indirectly blaming god for letting things go to hell...

The list is endless. But surely turning every offence and grievance into a lawsuit or a court case is not the way to go in a democratic society. Lawyers may love it, but it will soon bankrupt any open society.

And in the past, rights never stood on their own. They were always bundled together with duties, obligations and responsibilities. Any society that demands various rights without corresponding responsibilities is asking for, and getting, trouble.

Again, the jeebnut nails it (though the comment is unrelated to the thesis). But he's about to go off the rails:

This case also illustrates the never-ending set of demands of the radical homosexual lobby. Their agenda is never satisfied, and their grievances are endless. Indeed, this is but another example of how militant homosexuals seek to shut down all public debate about the issue. Instead of allowing for the free flow of ideas and values, they want to shut down any and all opposing viewpoints.

Those damned homos. Why can't they be ashamed of themselves, like all good fags (and every sexually active person, but straight fornicators are a lesser evil. It's the sodomites you've got to watch out for. Let's get those homos back in the closet where they belong, and then we'll get the nasty-fuckers.) I also like the idea of a "radical homosexual lobby". I demand you treat me like a real person! How radical.

They may talk all they like about tolerance and acceptance, but this is all just
one-way traffic. They show very little understanding, acceptance, tolerance or
openness to those who happen to disapprove of the homosexual agenda.

I've always wondered about this homosexual agenda. None of the gay people I've asked (and I've asked a lot) have seen the agenda. My brother thinks he might have missed that meeting.

Finally, this case shows the folly of the various types of legislation which have sprung up around the Western world. I refer to various sorts of equal opportunity laws, discrimination legislation, and the like. These bits of legislation are really designed to stifle debate in general and silence Christians in particular. Hate crime laws are the main example of this, and presumably this is what Mr Fowler from Michigan has in mind.

Yes, we do want to shut the Christians up. We've been outed, guys. Cheese it! The cops! I expect Mr. Fowler just wants Christians to stop telling him he's dirty, an abomination, and going to hell.

Indeed, it is becoming quite commonplace now for homosexual activists to claim the Bible is one big exercise in “hate speech”. Because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, homosexuals and their supporters are seeking to argue that the Bible should be banned, because it engages in hatred toward homosexuals.

It is. It does. Should it be banned? No.

These trends, taken together, nicely dovetail in what we now see happening, as exemplified by this Michigan case. A world which is losing its moral bearings, forgetting about common sense, and resorting to neo-paganism, becomes a very nice breeding ground for this sort of insanity. The soil has been nicely prepared for these sorts of nutto cases.

Right, because the gays and the Wiccans are in cahoots. Satan is dancing. I wouldn't bandy the word "nutto" about, you nutto.

Indeed, we can only expect to see many more such cases, as long as these
destructive trends are allowed to continue. It really is only a matter of time
before most Western nations fully outlaw the Bible, all in the name of acceptance, tolerance and homosexual rights. Whether that day comes sooner or later really depends on what we do about it. And can I suggest that silence will only hasten that day.

I can't stress this enough: give me a fucking break. You got all of that one, Billy. Hit that paranoia right out of the park.

Is the idea of Christian persecution maybe just projection?

Ah, the boycotts.

You will all remember this, a boycott of McDonald's for "refusing to stay neutral in the culture wars":

It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald's has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

That's right. McDonald's doesn't hate gay people, so there's a boycott afoot. Again, I wonder aloud, what the hell is with these people and homosexuals?

McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures.

April 2, 2008

According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald's will aggressively promote the homosexual agenda. In remarks on McDonald's Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), Skinner wrote: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."

The company gave an undisclosed amount of money to the NGLCC in return for being recognized as a major promoter of the homosexual agenda. In return, NGLCC placed Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald’s USA, on the NGLCC Board of Directors.

Ellis was quoted as saying: "I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NGLCC's passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

McDonald's refused to comment to World Net Daily on the placement of its executive on the board of the "gay" advocacy organization but did send an e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the homosexual business lobby.

It's just horrible, what McDonald's is doing to society:

• high-calorie, high-fat foods
• encouraging car culture
• destroying local differences in cuisine
• dumbing down the job market
• pulling down the minimum wage, and actively agitating agains unions and fair work practices
• encouraging (to put it mildly) a factory farm system, which:
• threatens the food supply
• destroys the family farm, and consequently small towns
• is horribly cruel to animals
• and is incredibly wasteful and environmentally damaging

Oh, and they don't hate gay people.

WTF?

Well, here's a boycott I can get behind:

Donation to Same-Sex Marriage Foes Brings Boycott Calls

by REBECCA CATHCART

Published: July 17, 2008

LOS ANGELES — A hotel owner’s $125,000 donation to support a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state has become a flashpoint, with opponents calling for a boycott of two of his hotels and supporters highlighting the donation in a
fund-raising letter.

The hotelier, Doug Manchester, donated the money to support the collection of signatures to qualify the initiative, which would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, for the November ballot.

See? Now we're actually getting somewhere. We're going to punish someone for being a hateful bastard, not because they're trying to reach out to marginalized communities.

It's not going to be hard for me to participate in this boycott. I have no plans to go to California soon. But if you're in the region, or will be, check it out, and avoid this homophobe's hotels. You might even want to call the hotel and teel them why you're not staying there. I'm kicking around the idea of calling or writing them myself.

You also might want to point out this charming bit of piosonous hypocrisy, which incidentally frames religious views as strictly political ones, in a subtle bit of obfuscation that actually snuck by me on the first reading:

Mr. Manchester said Wednesday: “This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

The hotel boycott has been framed by supporters of the ballot initiative as intimidation of those who express their political views.

On Tuesday, Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California, a group supporting Proposition 8, sent out an e-mail message warning of the boycott, calling it a “bullying” tactic.(Emphasis is mine.)

Excuse me, kettle? It's the pot on line one.

Judicial Activism

We get the same thing up here in Canada, though it's usually left alone, and there's not quite the hue and cry that seems to come with controversial judicial decisions on touchy subjects. In fact, there is little enthusiasm from most of the country to revisit an issue once the courts have decided the way the law ought to work. What usually happens is that Parliament and the Senate play catch-up if the court is right, and tighten the legislation if the court is wrong. The feds came back and legalized gay marriage after two provincial (might have been three) supreme courts ruled the ban violated the charter. This essentially ratified the courts' decisions federally, and all provinces had to follow suit afterwards. Occasionally, as with abortion, the courts, and the House simply ignore it once the decision is made. As such, there is no law in Canada regarding abortion, except such laws that govern medical practice already.

In the States, though, there's a lot of noise about Judges legislating from the bench. Part of it is due to the fact that the SCOTUS has four liberals and four conservatives on the bench, and one waffly swing vote. The US is one judicial appointment from reversing abortion law and kareening wildly towards a blurry separation of church and state. This is what will likely happen if McCain wins the presidency. You've been warned.

Perhaps not so oddly, it's conservatives that seem to have the most problems with "activist judges" (it's a conservative buzzword, even though it's actually two words), and our funny little friend Brannon Howse is no exception. He was the one obsessed with GAY SEX. I'd like to tell you about the latest panic-inducing screed by this charming homophobe.

The course of action by our judiciary is no innocent drift in legal interpretation. The judges’ unconstitutional moves have been calculated by a few to thrust their will upon Americans while the U.S. Congress has been asleep at the switch, seemingly unaware that the legislators’ very reason for existence is being chipped away.

Actually, US Congress is ignoring a hell of a lot of stuff, but the Supreme Court is not one of them. If I'm not mistaken, there are three separate branches of government, and the greatest threat to Congress' contitutionally prescribed authority is not coming from the judges. He's right that they are asleep at the switch, though, but you know what they say about stopped clocks...

Benjamin Cardozo, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1932, proudly proclaimed a belief in his right to usurp powers of the U.S. Congress and to violate the check-and-balance separations of the U.S. Constitution: “I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.”1

Umm, it is.

Cardozo not only held the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Congress in contempt; he saw little purpose for people of faith—which includes most Americans—who want to apply a moral law as foundation for the legal process: “If there is any law which is back of the sovereignty of the state, and superior thereto, it is not law in such a sense as to concern the judge or lawyer, however much it concerns the statesman or the moralist.”

And really, this is easily the gravest error that Howse could make. The job of the judicial branch has nothing at all to do with morality. It is concerned with laws. It's funny like that. And, it can only be concerned with the laws of the state (I think there's an oath, or something, and it's probably to god), since it is the state which governs the country, and the people which govern the state.

Only in wacky countries like Canada is god even mentioned, and even here he's not consulted, his ass is kissed and he's dismissed. Howse is confused, like many members of the religious right, and it's really frustrating. Men make man-made laws (pardon the sexist language, I just like the way it sounds), and it's likely that men make god's laws, too. But all (or at least most) men agree with most of the man-made laws, and god's laws are various and sundry. And that's just Abraham's god. When other gods get involved, it gets even uglier.

Justice Cardozo was not the first to sound this theme. In 1907, Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”3

So clearly this is urgent.

How can judges fulfill their sworn oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution while helping themselves to large portions of unconstitutional power and authority? How can they uphold the U.S. Constitution when they often don’t even consider the Constitution when rendering decisions? Or how can federal judges claim to fulfill their sworn duty when the majority of federal judges have endeavored to replace the U.S. Constitution with a different judicial standard?

Howse is really all over the place here. He rips into the judges for enforcing the law of the land, and then claims they don't. How many people caught that? Please raise your hands. This is a bait and switch, children. Keep your eyes open. He'll do it again.

The separation of power among the three branches of our government—executive, judicial, and legislative—was designed to safeguard our nation from the very thing we now face: a runaway branch of the government. But make no mistake. The check system is still in place. It just isn’t being used by Congress. Instead, our elected representatives go on allowing judges to enforce their new standard for law.

Actually, as I said before, they're letting the POTUS do this. Judges are still working from the prepared script.

Secular humanism and its penchant for moral relativism, along with misapplied Darwinism, has now become the postmodern foundation on which America’s courts and law schools are built. Constitutional and legal scholar John Eidsmoe observes: “Twentieth-century jurisprudence is based on a Darwinian worldview. Life evolves, men evolve, society evolves, and therefore laws and the constitution’s meaning evolves and changes with time.”5

This new legal formulation is known as “legal positivism.” In his book, Christianity and the Constitution, John Eidsmoe reviews the writings of the Critical Legal Studies movement, a group of radical lawyers, law professors, and law students. He summarizes legal positivism with the following points:
• There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.
• Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other
words, law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has
said it is law and is able to back it up by force.
• Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.
• Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law (Note again: judges “make law”).
• To study law, get at the original sources of law, the decisions of judges; hence most law schools today use the “case law” method of teaching law.6

See that? He did it again. I told you he would. Howse is a slippery one. I'll give him that. He says this: "elected representatives go on allowing judges to enforce their new standard for law", which claims that judges are rewriting man's law, and then says this: "There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.", as if one means the other.

I'd also like to point out that the "new standard for law" of these judges is about 220 years old. It's not as old as Moses' tablets (assuming they existed, or if they did, there was only one version...), to be sure, but it's hardly still in the wrapper.

And as a special bonus track, I'd like to ask Howse what method he'd suggest for teaching law, aside from case studies. Rabbinical study?

Another, simpler definition of legal positivism is: moral relativism applied to law. Moral relativism is the belief there is no such thing as moral absolutes—no standard of right or wrong for all people in all places at all times. At times, moral relativism is also called, simply, pragmatism. Moral relativism is closely tied to situational ethics, the belief that individuals are free to decide for themselves what is best for them to secure the most desirable outcome in any given situation.

There's a little obfuscation happening here, too. He's right, in that laws have changed. But he's claiming it's a bad thing. And maybe he thinks it is. For instance, it's no longer okay to castrate or lynch a black man because he had sex with a white woman. Are we really sure that's progress? It's no longer okay to beat your wife. So now what are you supposed to do after you drink fifteen beers and shoot all the cans? You're not allowed to go out driving then, either! Further, women can vote, too, which has caused no end of difficulties. Those activist judges are fucking up everything.

The fact is that things are relative. What's right for you may not be right for some. It takes diff'rent strokes to move the world. Even fucking sitcoms know it, and that's from the goddamn 80s. Brannon Howse is a neanderthal, which is funny, because he doesn't even think they existed (I'm assuming. He may be strangely rational when it comes to things like paleontology, geology, and biology.)

And furthermore, even god has no fucking consistency in his laws. He gave the Law to Moses, a different law to Jesus, another one to Mohammad, then another to John Smith. And again, that's just one fucking god. And even within those groups, there're differing rules: Catholicism v. Anglicanism v. Pentacostalism v. everybody else. Shia v. Sunni. Orthodox Jews v. Reformed Jews. The Buddha (who is not a god), presented another set of rules (though they're not as binding), Lao Tze came up with another, and Confucius wrote hundreds of rules. And that's just China (And I know I'm leaving some out). In the 20th century, L. Ron Hubbard hit another. And I haven't dealt with the "dead" religions, the smaller ones, the cults, the sects, the creeds, and a bunch of other major religions that I just don't have time for.

The cool thing about something like a Constitution is that although it's occasionally vague and open to interpretation (such as determining which groups of people actually qualify as human, and therefore are entitled to "human rights"), it's written by people, for people, and thus able to be interpreted by consensus. Sometimes consnsus is led by a few (as happened in Canada with gay marriage and abortion), and sometimes it's led by many (like the abolition of slavery in the US). But it's only about people, and that lowers the stakes somewhat.

Sorry about that. I'll finish up with Howse, now.

Langdell’s thought was advanced further by Dean Roscoe Pound and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes argued there is no fixed moral foundation for law: “The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories . . . have a good deal more to do than the syllogism [legal reasoning process] in determining the rules by which men should be governed.”8

Did you catch that? The “felt necessities of the time” and “prevalent moral and political theories” should be the basis of the rules by which men are governed.]

I caught it. He's trying to say that Holmes tried to pull a fast one on us. We're paying attention, Brannon. Carry on.

Using the “felt necessities” and “prevalent theories” model, judges can allow just about anything to be legal, depending on whose feelings, morals, and political theories are chosen for reference. Guided by this dangerous thinking, we have seen countless abortions performed in America. Even the grisly partial-birth abortion procedure has passed legal muster—a practice the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan called “near infanticide.”

Along with millions of babies, matters of decency have also been aborted. Current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while serving as an attorney for the ACLU in 1977, wrote a paper, entitled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code,” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, she argued that the legal age for sexual activity should be lowered to twelve years old.9 If enough judges agree the age change “is a necessity” based on the perverted “moral and political theories” of Alfred Kinsey, for instance, Americans would have to accept that it would be legal for an adult to have sex with a child of age twelve. Lest you think that too crazy to happen, bear in mind that famed sex researcher Alfred Kinsey actually promoted the idea of adults having sex with children, and there are other forces pushing in similar directions. A University of Minnesota publisher produced a book that discusses the “benefits” of children having sex with adults, and the North American Man/Boy Love Association has promoted this idea for years. These are the kinds of philosophical foundations that are now in play with relativistic judges.

Howse tries some "slippery slope" shit on us. I did the same thing myself, earlier. But Howse was asking for it. Holmes' "felt necessities of the time" did include slavery, suffrage, and allowing gay marriage, too, so my slippery slope stunt was retroactive. He pulls out that tired old lint-covered chestnut of gay marriage equalling pedophilia, but not before ignoring the fact that judges still have to work with the fucking Constitution as their rule book, and judge new laws against that.

It's stupid, but it's really the best he's got. Further, he gets to blame Kinsey for it. At least that's new. Oh, and apparently NAMBLA runs the SCOTUS. Did you guys get that one? Bonus points!

So there you have it. Howse's reactionary screeching, and my reaction.

Bulgaria

Just a quickie.

Any idea why religious nuts have such a hard on for gay people?

Bulgarian extremists attack gay parade with rocks
4 days ago

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Extremists throwing rocks, bottles and gasoline bombs have attacked the Bulgarian capital's first gay pride parade.

Police say they prevented the extremists from harming the 150 or so people in the procession through Sofia. No serious injuries have been reported.

Police say they detained about 60 people for harassing the parade participants.

Gays face widespread hostility in Bulgaria and opposition to Saturday's parade has been fierce. The far-right Bulgarian National Union had called for "open resistance" to the gay pride parade with a campaign featuring posters that say: "Be Intolerant, Be Normal."

Bulgaria's influential Orthodox Church said the march should be banned as it undermines the country's Christian traditions.

What's with these people?

Jesus Hates Fags

I caught this on a clickthrough from Canadian Cynic:

The Search For The Pederast Brain
Scientists are desperate to establish a scientific justification for homosexuality. Public money is being spent. The belief is that if it can be demonstrated that homosexuality is in some way intrinsic rather than chosen, this will normalize and justify it. Proponents of homosexuality are hoping that this will provide a knock-out blow against Christian objections to homosexuality.

It will, of course, do no such thing. Christians understand that, since the Fall, man inherits a corrupt, that is, sinful, nature through Adam. We are born into the world with defective, disordered natures. Put it this way: we are not sinners just because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Homosexuality will continue to be seen, in this
light, as objectively disordered against the objective standard of male and female which can be seen in nature, and, if you can't see it there, in Scripture. The remedy is not the normalization of sin; it is Christ.

I love the breathtaking arrogance of that last sentence. It is just fucking awesome, in the sense that it fills me with awe.

Of course. Jesus can fix all the gays. All they have to do is accept Jesus into their hearts, and they will no longer be gay. At least their hearts won't be. The naughty bits, as we've seen, remain gay.

This is sustained, and cloaked in a wonderful filmy gauze of compassion. You see, Ball himself loves gays. It's Jesus, you see. The devil has corrupted us all (especially gays), and it's just not natural. Want proof? Check the scripture. The thrust of it is this, unless I misunderstand. We have allowed gay people actual status as people, but that was misguided, and ultimately discriminatory, because we don't allow pedophiles to be people:

Personhood - Gay vs. Pederast
This discriminatory bias of secular society is also seen in the concept of personhood. Clearly, in our society, the terms gay and person have been twinned, to the point where gay is considered the definition of a person, as opposed to simply a descriptive trait associated with a person. (The media never talk about the rights of "men engaging in homosexual activities", it is always about the rights of "gay persons" -- the "gay" identity being stronger than the "male" identity.) The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. It is the foundation of all arguments in favour of homosexuality. And it is the foundation of all that is wrong with these arguments. Christians who understand that God has made us male and female understand that homosexual and gay are, ultimately, false identities. It may be what a person feels, it may define a person's urges, but it is not who a person is. (And that is why, ultimately, catering to these false identities is neither helpful nor kind -- gays are, like us, first and foremost, males; and lesbians, are, like us, first and foremost females. Rather than viewing homosexuals as some class of "other" with rights, we view them as being "ourselves", welcome them and embrace them as such, while holding them to the same moral standards as we hold ourselves.)

He's clear to separate the gay activities from the person, I assume because he's supposed to love the person, but it just makes him sound all weaselly, in my opinion. The phrase "men engaging in homosexual activities" seems all accusatory and discriminatory, even more so than "fag" (IMO). The implication is that a man can deny his homosexual attraction even while accomodating another man's penis. If you are enjoying another man's (or woman's) gear, I'm not saying you're gay, but you're not exactly straight and narrow.

And the phrasing of that last bit is eerie, too, about moral standards. In fact, I do hold gay people to the same moral standards as I hold myself. Where they stick their junk has very little to do with it, so long as everyone consents.

And that's where the argument falls down, Dear Reader, though he does try to accomodate it:

Both Christians and secularists have an understanding of normal, and, from this, right-and-wrong. Secularists find theirs in the amoral idea of adult permissiveness; if two adults are predisposed to do it, and want to do it, how can we say it's wrong? (Especially when we've paid for science that backs us up!) On this basic, they judge homosexuality to be OK, but pederasty not so; Christians, with minds rooted in reason and revelation, have a higher view of humankind, and, because of this, a narrower view of what constitutes a baseline of normal or moral behaviour.

Here's my baseline: consensual acts between adults. I don't care who fucks whom, unless it is me being fucked.

But I'll go one further, and this is where things get sticky, friends and neighbours. I agree that "pederasts" (what an icky word) do not choose their sexuality. And furthermore, I suggest that they warrant pity rather than revulsion. There's no fucking way they chose to be attracted to children, but because we view that "orientation" with such horror, they repress it until they succumb, rather than seeking support. Natasha at Homo Academicus does a much more thorough job of explaining this point, and I am in complete agreement. And his final declaration, that I am the bigoted one, is just fucking gross.

This is a good example of how religion can screw a person up. He sounds all kind and concerned, but he ultimately equates homosexuality with "pederasty", and uses that to validate his bigotry.

His bigotry comes from the Bible, not the science.

Finally. Some consistency.

Special thanks to Brian at the Primordial Blog.

I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I support the church's position here, not because it's reasonable, but because at least it's internally consistent.

It's an interesting story about a Catholic priest refusing to marry a couple because there is no hope of conception. Here's the story in its entirety (it's short):

Impotent paraplegic told: no church wedding

June 9, 2008 - 3:52PM

An Italian bishop has reportedly told a young paraplegic he cannot have a church wedding because he is impotent, despite his fiancee being aware of the problem.

Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo in central Italy, told SkyTG24 television: "No bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment" of the marriage.

The 26-year-old groom, who took part in a civil marriage ceremony on Saturday in Viterbo, has been paraplegic since he was involved in a car accident.

The curate of the parish who was banned from marrying the couple was present at the ceremony.

The favourite defense, by Catholics I know, of the church's stance on gay marriage is that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. "We're not bigots," say the faithful, "It's God's plan!" (I used a capital "G" because they would.) In other words, god's the bigot.

I point out that clearly that is not the case, as people who can't have children get married all the time. My mother-in-law got remarried, and she's not likely to have kids (menopause), so there you go.

And so finally, some bishop says what I've been saying all along. This guy, at least, is allowed to keep his homophobia.

Conservation

It's a misnomer, actually, but I wanted to pose a serious question.

What do Conservatives want to conserve?

Seriously. It occurred to me the other day when I was fuming about something or other that "Canada's New Government" did, or the stance of "The Conservative Party of Canada" that I didn't really know the answer.

So I thought about it. They're obviously not concerned about conserving energy, or resources in general. Especially Canada's Conservatives. Canada's conservatives might be interested, but if they vote for the Conservatives, then they don't. So they're not interested in conserving a viable economy or ecology.

Are they interested in conserving traditional values? Values like misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, contempt for the poor, religious mania, senseless nationalism and other forms of bigotry? That seems closer to the truth. Many conservatives, based on rants caught on tape and revealed years later, or their back-door strategy to ban abortions, or their insistence on abstinence-only education, their resistance to mainstream biology, their wars of profit against brown people, their fanatic demonization of illegal aliens, their inability to reach out to minorities of all kinds, their constant claims that their "way of life" is under attack (which it is, and that's probably a good thing, because their way of life consisted of privelege for straight, white, Christian, rich men) and other behaviuors, that these values might be what they're mostly interested in preserving.

Are they interested in conserving money, and running a tight financial ship? Not in the States, certainly, and in Canada, Conservatives are riding the surpluses that the Liberals created to score cheap points with the electorate.

Are they interested in conserving government? Definitely not in the States, and it seems that our cons are following the lead on this one.

Are they interested in conserving the power of a ruling oligarchy? Fuck yes.

Are they interested in conserving an unsustainable economic model? Oh, fuck yeah.

Are they interested in conserving the model of a "traditional family" that has only existed for the last hundred years or so, and only in affluent societies? Is the pope a conservative in a funny hat?

Are they interested in conserving voter confidence and accountability? No fucking way.

It seems to me that conservatives are mostly interested in conserving what's worst for society at large: traditional values based on hate and fear, the power of a ruling elite, even in a democracy, and the political influence of corporations.

Conservation and conservatism are at odds. The conservatives need to change their name.