Bar Republicans from Adopting!

State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to "introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents." The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship...

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption...

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.

Just as "Hood had no scientific evidence" to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said. (Emphasis added.)

Sometimes parody is the best argument. And the bolded paragraph strikes me as more likely than the worries about gay parents.

(Link: Lawmaker's proposal: Bar Republicans from adopting)

My Opposite Day Entry: Why Christianity is True

Okay, I guess I'll argue for Christianity. (For an explanation of Opposite Day, see my previous post.)

First, there seems to be no plausible explanation for true free will without the supernatural. Although it's therefore tempting to argue that there is no free will, it's obvious from everyday experience that there is. (Studies which purport to show that our decisions are made before we consciously make them only demonstrate an interesting point about how our consciousness works, not about whether we are ultimately free to make decisions. The experiments prove nothing about whatever began the build-up to the decision.)

If there is a supernatural being behind every human, it stands to reason that there is an even greater supernatural being of which the smaller beings are a part, or are split off of somehow. This is exactly what Christianity teaches. What is Christ if not part of the Greater Spirit (God) combined with a human one? In fact, the very notion of the Trinity reflects the metaphysics which makes most sense based on simple observation. God, or the Spirit, is united but at the same time has different manifestations. God is God the Father, the Creator, while at the same time the Son, the human. There is also the pervasive Holy Spirit which fills all of Creation.

It's clear that the Old Testament began with a people who were prepared only for a tribal Deity, not the real Monotheism of later Christianity. In the Old testament, God acts like a polytheistic God - angry, jealous, loving, vengeful... in other words, human, but bigger. He is a nations's God, rather than the only God. He says, "worship no other Gods before me," not "I am the only God who exists."

Judaism paved the way for Christ's message. Jesus was himself both God and Jew, and so formed a new covenant, this time not with one nation, but with anyone willing to accept Him. At this point, the people had been weaned off of primitive, pagan-like sacrifices and ritual laws of kashrut and the like were no longer necessary. Christ showed people how to interact directly with God without needing such primitive intermediaries.

Some claim that Jesus did not exist. This is almost certainly untrue. He is a recent enough figure and he shows up not just in the four gospels, but in extra-Biblical documents like Josephus and the Talmud. Some point out that the gospels contradict each other in places, for example with the details in the story of His resurrection. I agree that there are contradictions, but that this is to be expected when hearing a story from four different sources. I don't believe that the NT (or the OT) were dictated from God, but it's clear they were inspired from the comfort they give to millions.

The OT paved the way for Jesus Christ. There are many prophets before Jesus, but the OT also speaks of the Messiah. If the Old Testament has any truth to it, there's no way the Second Temple could have been destroyed with no Messiah coming for over two thousand years. Even when the nation of Israel was being punished, it was only for four hundred years! It's clear from the OT that the Messiah would be coming sooner rather than later.

Arguments against the Old Testament from science are irrelevant. The Old Testament was never supposed to be a literal history of the Universe. It was an introduction to God for a people who did not yet know Him. He spoke in their language, according to what they could accept at that time. Later, in Jesus's time, he updated the teachings to include the rest of humanity.

Did evolution happen? Of course it did. Is the universe billions of years old and unimaginably vast? Of course. These things only prove God's existence all the more so! Evolution is far too intricate to lead to a being as astounding as the human without being guided somehow. A 4-billion year old Earth with a long, winding path towards the human reveals an incomprehensibly powerful God.

And what of Christ's teachings? Can anyone deny that his words carry immense wisdom?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God... Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also... I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; --Matthew 5

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. --John 8:7

Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1-2

Were not these teachings shown to be wise by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Who among modern figures are more revered than those two who so closely followed Jesus's teachings.

Oh, you will say, so much harm has been done in Jesus's name. This is true, I agree, but those so-called followers of Christ aren't doing any following. Christ predicted such hypocrisy and gave us the only test we need for discovering who the real Christians are. He said, "By their fruits you shall know them." In other words, if one praises Jesus but steals from the poor, he's not a Christian. If one praises Jesus but agitates for war, he's not a Christian. If one praises Jesus but bilks the faithful out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, he's not a Christian.

Mankind is flawed, and Jesus came to rescue us from ourselves. His sacrifice mirrors the primitive use of the (literal) scapegoat in the old testament, but reinvents it for a more enlightened humanity. Even to the gravest suffering, stand up for what's right, is his message. In the OT, the faithful kill the scapegoat. In the NT, the most faithful one IS the scapegoat. Don't strike, but turn the other cheek. When we all follow Jesus, there will be no war.

And what of our sins? What does it mean to say Jesus died to save us? By his death he teaches that living isn't the most important thing, how you live is. He modeled for us even as he was dying the perfect behavior. "Forgive them Father," he says, referring to his murderers, "they know not what they do." Christ died teaches us the alternative to hatred.

Opposite Day!

I was thinking it might be fun to have an opposite day, where the atheists do their best to argue that theism is correct and the theists do their best to argue that atheism is correct. Perhaps some Jews can argue that Christianity is correct and vice versa. The point is to get you to put yourself in someone else's shoes and see what the logic looks like from that side.

It'll only work if you really try, though. You must resist mocking or parodying the position you're supposed to be fighting for.

Religion vs. Dogma, Part II

In my last post, Chana asked me, "How would you, if you had the power or ability, change the system so that it yielded more open-minded thinkers as opposed to dogmatic followers?" I'd like to expand upon my answer there.

I think it might be useful to look at the Twelve Traditions of Twelve Step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. Although it's debatable whether Twelve Step groups are religious institutions, I believe that all religions and religious institutions can learn from their focus on achieving a goal ("to carry [AA's] message to the alcoholic who still suffers") while avoiding distractions.

They are:

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.

2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.

5. Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.

6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.

7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.

8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers.

9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.

10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.

12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

Perhaps religious bodies could adapt the Twelve Traditions to ensure that religion never strays from its original purpose and never becomes ensnared in the dogmatic. Here are some of my suggestions that any honest religious body should have no problem endorsing:

1. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - [insert "God" / "our consciences" / "God as we understand Him or Her or It or Them/etc." / "the Torah" as appropriate.] Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

2. The only requirement for membership in our religion is [having a Jewish mother / believing in Jesus / wanting to be a better person.]

3. A group associated with [our religion] ought never endorse, finance or lend the [religion's] name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.

4. Every [religious] group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.

5. [The religion] has no opinion on outside issues; hence the [religion's] name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

6. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.


If religions followed these six traditions, there would be no Jerry Falwell (#3, #5, and #6), no religious interference with government (#3 and #5), no commercialized books/red string bracelets/Left Behind movies (#3 and #6), no Intelligent Design movement (#3 and #5), no discrimination against those of other faiths or no faith (#5), no excommunication (#2), and, finally, no enforcing of dogma (#1 and #2).

And what will we have lost besides dogma, commercialism, and egotism?

Dogma: The Real Enemy

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought. --Nanzan Daishi

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. --Thomas Jefferson

Under attack, sentiments harden into dogma. --Mason Cooley

I have no quarrel with religion held sincerely but loosely. The problem is that religion tends almost invariable towards the dogmatic. For every ten sophisticated religious thinkers, there are a hundred who mindlessly follow an ossified, thoughtless shell of religion. True religious thinkers adapt to new ideas and new discoveries; dogmatists shut their eyes and plug their ears. Worse, they often try to shut our eyes and plug our ears. The true religious thinker always seeks the truth; the dogmatist is sure he already has it.

In this manner, I believe the atheist* is more a true religious thinker than the dogmatist. If God exists, we are wrong, but at least we aren't worshipping the idol that is religious dogma. For isn't that exactly what dogma is? Being dogmatic, at its best, is worshipping a man-made approximation of God. You might as well believe that a statue of Jesus created the Earth as be a young-Earth Creationist living in 21st century America.



* By "atheist" I refer to one who, like myself, believes that there is no God, but holds that belief tentatively, prepared to change his or her mind should new evidence arise in the same way that he or she would change his/her mind about the non-existence of unicorns if one were discovered. Certainly some atheists suffer from dogmatism as much as any Roman Catholic.