Category Archives: Life

Religious Liberty and Same-Sex Sex

Posted on by

Marriage isn’t an obscure practice. I bet you know married people even if you aren’t married yourself. Since marriage (the monogamous kind anyway) has always been defined as a relationship between a man (the husband) and a woman (the wife), it’s understandable that many of us are having trouble with the new definition. 

It’s also understandable that some people, including blinkered members of the Supreme Court, are resisting same-sex marriage, arguing that it’s just too weird or that the Constitution doesn’t require legalizing it (their argument being that “equal protection of the laws” doesn’t necessarily mean equal protection of the laws). 

But there’s another reason being offered against same-sex marriage that I’m having more trouble understanding. Here’s the relevant language from Justice Thomas’s dissent (which begins at page 78 of this file):

… the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect….In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well….Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples….

Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths” …  Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice [pp. 14-15 of the dissent].

Thomas’s concern is that religious liberty includes “freedom of action in matters of religion” and that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to lots of situations in which people won’t be allowed to practice their religion as they wish. He doesn’t provide any examples, but claims that demands will be made to “participate in and endorse” marriage-related activities to which people object on religious grounds. In support of his position, Thomas refers to the amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief submitted by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

The Church anticipates problems of two kinds:

(1) Churches and church-affiliated organizations won’t be eligible for certain benefits if they discriminate against same-sex married couples. For example, church-run adoption agencies might lose their state licenses if they refuse to place children with same-sex couples. Church-run homeless shelters could lose government grants. Religious colleges might lose their accreditation or their access to government financial aid programs. Likewise, individual employees might lose their jobs or be disciplined if they refuse to provide services to same-sex couples.

(2) Individuals will bring lawsuits against churches and church-affiliated organizations that discriminate against such couples, charging illegal discrimination. Religious institutions might be subject to public accommodation laws that require businesses to provide products and services to anyone who can pay. Same-sex couples denied student housing might sue. Employees in same-sex marriages might sue religious organizations in order to keep their jobs.

In these various cases, the Church is arguing that anyone who conscientiously objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds should have the right to discriminate against same-sex couples. On the face of it, that sounds illegal. But it might not be. An article in The Atlantic explains why:

No law, state or federal, forbids “discrimination” generally. Employers, landlords, and businesses “discriminate” all the time—on the basis of low credit ratings, bad references, and poor employment histories, among other factors. Any type of private discrimination is legal unless a state or federal law specifically forbids it….

Thus, a civil-rights statute has two key parts. The first lays out the traits it governs, the forbidden grounds—for example, … “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” To state a claim, plaintiff must show that he or she has been treated less favorably than others who differ in one of the covered traits, and that the unfavorable treatment was because of that trait….

Then the law specifies what activities it covers, and usually offers certain exemptions. For example, … the Fair Housing Act bars a landlord from refusing to rent to anyone because of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” But it allows religious organizations that own dwellings to favor members of their own sect…

The question, therefore, is where to draw the line between people’s freedom to practice their religion as they see fit and other people’s right to be treated fairly. Religious opponents of same-sex marriage want to draw the line so they can discriminate against same-sex couples in lots of different ways (“we won’t let you attend our college”). Supporters of same-sex marriage want same-sex couples to be treated like other married couples.

Maybe everyone would agree that a minister who thinks same-sex marriage isn’t sacred should not have to officiate at a same-sex wedding. It makes some sense to me that a church-run adoption agency might not want to give a child to a same-sex couple (a Catholic charity in Boston apparently shut down their adoption services to avoid doing that — I’m not endorsing their decision — I’m simply saying it’s understandable from their perspective). But it’s hard to believe there are good religious reasons for the many kinds of discrimination the Seventh Day Adventists and other churches apparently want to practice. 

How can it be against someone’s religion to provide counseling to a same-sex married couple? Or give them food or shelter? Or allow them to attend the college you administer? Or buy flowers or a cake from your shop?

The answer, of course, is that those kinds of discrimination aren’t required by anyone’s religion. In this case, claiming to have religious reasons (or “core religious beliefs”) that justify treating certain people worse than others is a way to attack or renounce their sexual orientation. That’s why the phrase “aid and abet” sometimes appears in discussions of this issue. Opponents don’t want to “aid and abet” what they consider to be deviant sexual behavior, as if that behavior were criminal. They somehow think that acknowledging same-sex marriage or providing aid and comfort to same-sex couples amounts to endorsing same-sex sex.

Certainly, many oppose this evolution in the definition of marriage because it’s strange and new. Following religions that are thousands of years old tends to foster conservatism (the kind that honors tradition, not the fake “conservatism” we hear so much about these days). But the real reason same-sex marriage bothers some people so much is that being in a same-sex marriage is public confirmation that a person has same-sex sex. A person can be gay or a lesbian without announcing that fact to their minister or rabbi, or their college administration, or the staff at their local county clerk’s office. But getting married to someone of the same sex delivers a very clear message. You have the kind of sex that really bothers some people. And you’re planning to have a lot of it for a very long time. You aren’t going through a phase. You aren’t going to change your ways with a bit of counseling. So deal with it.

As a religious person, you can react to this new situation in different ways. You can say “Yuck! I don’t like this at all!” and maybe offer some reasons, religious or otherwise. Or you can mind your own business (“let him who is without sin…”). Or be thankful that more people will be getting married, which is supposed to be a good thing. But you shouldn’t use your religion as an excuse for discrimination. Why make life difficult for people who haven’t done you any harm? Their liberties are just as important as yours.

Understanding the International Date Line (Finally)

Posted on by

The International Date Line has bothered me for decades. Not because I have anything against international agreements and not because I’ve ever traveled across the Pacific. It’s just been very puzzling. Why is it a different day of the week on opposite sides of an imaginary line in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Is it always one day to the west of the Date Line and another day to the east? Even though it’s, say, the middle of the afternoon? How can that be the place where it’s a different day in adjoining time zones, when it’s a new day in every time zone as soon as the clock strikes 12 midnight? How can there be two places in the world where it’s a new day?

The concept has never made any sense. Which is why it was a relief when I finally figured out the damn thing a few weeks ago. What I apparently needed all these years was a visual representation of the globe showing what happens to the day of the week as the Earth goes about its business. Something like this: 

Date line pic

(1) First off, it isn’t true that it’s always a different day of the week on opposite sides of the Date Line. There is one hour every day when it’s the same day of the week on both sides: when it’s between 11 p.m. and 12 midnight in New Zealand, it’s the same day of the week everywhere. That’s line (1) in the diagram. At 11 p.m. in New Zealand, when Monday is almost done, Monday is just beginning at Midway Island in the middle of the Pacific.

(2) Then, when the clock strikes 12 midnight in New Zealand, the next day of the week makes its first appearance in that single time zone. (That’s why Kiwis celebrate the New Year before the rest of us.)

(3) As the hours proceed, more time zones join the new day. By the time it’s 1 p.m. in New Zealand, it’s 10 a.m. in Beijing, 2 a.m. in London and striking midnight out in the Atlantic. The new day is moving westward around the world as each hour passes. But notice that it’s still the previous day on Midway, even though New Zealand and Midway Island are in adjoining time zones and it’s early afternoon in both places. It’s strange but true.

(4) Eventually, the new day arrives in America. In effect, the new day is growing and the old day is shrinking.

(5) The new day makes its way across the Pacific, engulfing Hawaii but leaving Midway at yesterday.

(6) Until finally, it’s the same day of the week all over the world again (for an hour anyway).

So it isn’t the case that it’s always two different days on opposite sides of the Date Line. And aside from one hour each day, there are always two boundaries between one day and the next: at the Date Line and also where the clock is striking 12 midnight.

One last question: Why do we need an International Date Line? I think it’s to avoid a contradiction. Let’s assume it’s 1 p.m. in New Zealand and 2 p.m. on Midway Island, as shown in line (3) above, but there is no Date Line. So we’ll also assume it’s Sunday in both places.

Then look west toward Africa and Europe. When it’s 1 p.m. in New Zealand, it would be Sunday at 12 midnight in the Atlantic. That means, of course, that it would still be Saturday night a bit further west in New York City.

But then look east from New Zealand toward North and South America. If it’s 1 p.m. Sunday in New Zealand, it’s Sunday night in California and early Monday morning in New York.

However, it can’t be both Saturday night and Monday morning in New York (think of the confusion). That’s why we need an International Date Line. A mathematician could probably explain it in technical terms. In practical terms, the Date Line helps make sure there’s a definite answer to the question: What’s today?

Terrorists Like Us

Posted on by

From President Obama’s statement regarding the terrorist attack in Charleston:

This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked.  And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals.

The President could have used the active voice instead of the passive. He could have said “This is not the first time that racist white men have attacked black churches”. That would have been more descriptive.

But it would have sounded unnecessarily inflammatory. Unnecessary, because who else would murder nine black people while declaring that “You rape our women and you are taking over our country”. Inflammatory, because calling attention to the killer’s color would upset people who say or want to believe that white racism isn’t a problem anymore.

Britt Bennett’s brief article in the New York Times does an excellent job of explaining how and why white terrorism isn’t called that:

This is the privilege of whiteness: While a terrorist may be white, his violence is never based in his whiteness. A white terrorist has unique, complicated motives that we will never comprehend. He can be a disturbed loner or a monster. He is either mentally ill or pure evil…. Either way, he is never indicative of anything larger about whiteness, nor is he ever a garden-variety racist. He represents nothing but himself. A white terrorist is anything that frames him as an anomaly and separates him from the long, storied history of white terrorism.

I’m always struck by this hesitance not only to name white terrorism but to name whiteness itself during acts of racial violence. In a recent New York Times article on the history of lynching, the victims are repeatedly described as black. Not once, however, are the violent actors described as they are: white. Instead, the white lynch mobs are simply described as “a group of men” or “a mob”…. [Obama’s] passive language echoes this strange vagueness, a reluctance to even name white terrorism, as if black churches have been attacked by some disembodied force, not real people motivated by a racist ideology whose roots stretch past the founding of this country.

In America’s contemporary imagination, terrorism is foreign and brown. Those terrorists do not have complex motivations. We do not urge one another to reserve judgment until we search through their Facebook histories or interview their friends. We do not trot out psychologists to analyze their mental states. We know immediately why they kill. But a white terrorist is an enigma. A white terrorist has no history, no context, no origin. He is forever unknowable.

Like South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said this week: 

While we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.

But the thing is, in this case, we do know. 

Who Knew the Pope Would Turn Out To Be a Christian?

Posted on by

And a Christian who believes in science!

Pope Francis is upsetting a lot of people, including the fools and knaves seeking the Republican nomination (you know, the make-believe Christians who won’t admit nine people were murdered by a racist in Charleston because that would imply racism is still a problem in America).

The Pope issued a message to the world this week. From The Guardian:

Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si’, is the most astonishing and perhaps the most ambitious papal document of the past 100 years, since it is addressed not just to Catholics, or Christians, but to everyone on earth….

We need nature, he says, and we need each other….The care of nature and the care of the poor are aspects of the same ethical commandment, and if we neglect either one we cannot find peace….

Starting from that premise, he launches a ferocious attack on what he sees as the false and treacherous appetites of capitalism and on the consumerist view of human nature. For Francis, there is a vital distinction between human needs, which are limited but non-negotiable, and appetites, which are potentially unlimited, and which can always be traded for other satisfactions without ever quite giving us what we most deeply want. The poor, he says, have their needs denied, while the rich have their appetites indulged. The environmental crisis links these two aspects of the problem.

… The document is absolutely unequivocal in backing the overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a clear and present danger. It blasts the use of fossil fuels and demands that these be phased out in favour of renewable energy. But it is also explicitly opposed to the idea that we can rely on purely technological solutions to ecological problems….There will never be a technological fix for the problem of unrestrained appetite, the pope claims, because this is a moral problem, which demands a moral solution, a turn towards sobriety and self-restraint and away from the intoxications of consumerism.

The New York Times offers this summary (followed by selected paragraphs from the encyclical with explanatory comments):

Pope Francis has written the first papal encyclical focused solely on the environment, attempting to reframe care of the earth as a moral and spiritual concern, and not just a matter of politics, science and economics. In the document, “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home,” he argues that the environment is in crisis … He emphasizes that the poor are most affected by damage from what he describes as economic systems that favor the wealthy, and political systems that lack the courage to look beyond short-term rewards….Its 184 pages are an urgent, accessible call to action, making a case that all is interconnected, including the solutions to the grave environmental crisis.

Perhaps we will do nothing about climate change until it’s too late. Last year was the warmest since records have been kept. This year is on track to be even warmer. But the climate isn’t changing fast enough to generate concerted global action. Short of a message from on high (from much higher than the sky), there may be nothing that will act as a sufficient catalyst. For now, however, Pope Francis has done his part.

Here are the first paragraphs of Laudato Si’:

1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.

2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.

Nothing in this world is indifferent to us.

The entire text is here.

The Strangest Author’s Note I’ve Ever Read

Posted on by

Quote:

The picture of the human condition presented here is in many ways disturbing. This might be a reason for some people not to read the book — perhaps those who lack familiarity with the ways of philosophical discourse,  for the young, the very sensitive, and for those who are liable to depression. I ask the prospective reader to bear this in mind.

The content of this book may also be misunderstood or abused at the social level. To my understanding there is nothing here which contradicts the social values I hold, affirming a humanistic outlook based on universal equal human rights and a constitutional democratic regime. I request that the reader take care in understanding the complex arguments being made, and not jump to simplistic and hasty conclusions. Any attempt to enlist this book in a movement opposed to the enlightened humanistic ethos of Western civilization, or to use it in a way which opposes academic freedom, or which leads to intolerance or cruelty towards men and woman, lacks foundation in this work.

The author is Professor Saul Smilansky of Haifa University. The book is Free Will and Illusion. It was first published in 2000 by the Oxford University Press.

I’ll let you know if I make it through the book and still have anything to say.