Between Thee and the Woman

Every morning after we get the kids off to school, I listen to Radio From Hell's "Boners of the Day" while in the tub, and attempt to finish the Tribune's sudoku before that segment ends. It scratches that itch for ritual I've kept from my youth :-).

Today they had a story of "Satan" being apprehended in a bathroom. As Monday is the simplest sudoku day, my mind wandered off on this story to think about what some folk--not just terribly troubled people, such as the guy in the story--actually do believe about some invisible world of demons and the devil surrounding them.

What if Satan was in the realm of horses rather than unicorns, and, above that, apprehended in a men's bathroom, for "staring and pointing at himself in the mirror"?

Would that mean some of my siblings would expect us to wake up the next day free of temptation, thinking that it'd be best if we dissolved our union, split up our boy's home? We'd look for a couple of girls, who we would suddenly find attractive, or at least we'd stop seeing coupling up with them as wrong in all sorts of ways? Would brains, hair sworls, and such of the average homosexual all morph back to the God-desired heterosexual male template? Boy, I hope we'd have a smooth custody battle and at least remain in the same ward :-).

I mean, I hear a lot of people talk about devils and their influence on the world and gay people in particular. It's weird, and, frankly, creepy, insulting, and dehumanizing to suspect that some of my family, when they think of me and our home, may think like, well, like Jack Chick (see here for one of the funniest examples of serious homophobia I know of). I kind of feel like, just for kicks, I should learn to roll my eye back into my head and talk backwards in Latin; really freak them out.

I've often heard people say the greatest success of the devil is making his influence so imperceptible that people do not believe in him. I probably bought that at one time too. I find this framing clever, sure--to them the absence of evidence is the best evidence of all. But it sucks to be the one powerless to address the unaddressable evidence on the other end of it.

All this reminds me... On my shelf I keep a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum, along with a whole bunch of other religiously themed book. As Wikipedia summarizes:

The main purpose of the Malleus was systematically to refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist, refute those who expressed skepticism about its reality, to prove that witches were more often women than men, and to educate magistrates on the procedures that could find them out and convict them.

This book, at one time, was second only to the Bible in its spread through Christianity, and it should be required reading for anyone who, for religious reasons, has decided to hunt the "witches" of any age. Not for instruction, but for perspective.

A lot has changed since then, but it's amazing how much has not: the righteous focus on sex, satanic trickery, claiming the person being harmed is the victimizer. Posing people as influenced by or tools of demons seems to be an efficacious and time-tested way to hide the humanity in the targets. No one wants to hurt us gays and our families, right? But they have to stop us from souring their cow's milk and truing their families into a bunch of newts, right?

Holiday Agnog

I've been trying to think what I could say to this post by Ben since it was put up and failed in comment form; so I just winged it and the comment got too big to be a comment (and now, for a post ,I even made it longer... and more about the general topic of agnosticism). It ultimately drifts away from Ben's post is what I'm saying :-).

[In short Ben said he's missing the religion behind the season, as a fairly recent agnostic.]

Maybe it's been too long since I became a non-believer to remember well how it used to be. It seems Christmas has always been one of my favorite holidays (second to Easter--I'm a sucker for the whole Spring renewal thing... and hiding eggs). I just look at them now as something like a play that a whole culture puts on each season (which is probably why we've no problem incorporating a bit of Hanukkah :-)).

We have our big four here: Easter, 4th of July (or the 24th ;-)), Halloween, and Christmas. To me they all embody different important human qualities, and hopes, purposes; all appropriately tie themselves to the rhythm of seasons. There are some almost instinctual notions in there, and it seems to me one can get the gist of the holidays as an agnostic; maybe it just takes time to reframe them. I mean, there's still great value in the play, even if it's just a bunch of actors reading lines. Sure, it can seem silly to think of the actors and fiction while watching it, but I feel we can find worth in the broader ideas without buying into the "facts", as we do with, say, Hamlet.

[Ben also mentioned studies that show religions have a health benefit]

As for such studies, I've wondered about them too. People with a lot of people in their lives do live longer; church's give a sense of community; they offer answers to big pressing questions; they can be a safety net... There are a lot of benefits to belonging to a religion and I'd not be surprised if some extend life a bit.

I know I could join a faith that even supports my family, if I wanted those benefits. By the studies I've seen, it doesn't matter which faith you join. I'm sure I could, after enough repetition and investment, come to feel this or that church is true; I've been there before. I'm sure I could also raise our children to believe in most any faith of my choosing; a parent's faith is, after all, the predominant cause of a person's faith.

My problem would be the cost (and I don't mean tithing :-)). It seems believing without objective evidence will always have a human cost, as each human, without objective evidence, can easily come to conflicting truths. Such faith eventually comes to conflict, sometimes violently, and can often blind people to new evidence (I know this may sound offensive but I'd wager, say, any LDS talking with an ardent and faithful Scientologist would find the same problem). I know people get a lot of joy from religions and many absolutely KNOW their faith is the Truth, but people get that joy and certainty even from faiths that require them to hurt others for it. I know it is often innocuous, but when it goes bad and faiths clash with no hope of surrendering to objective experiment, it really goes bad. The cost in violating that agnostic core principle seems simply too high, even if there is truly a health benefit, even if what I'm asked to take on faith seems innocuous at first.

In general, I think many people may look at agnosticism or skepticism as laziness or confusion or cynicism, but there is actually quite a demanding and, for me, inspiring principle there. The bad news is we are far from perfect truth detectors and that is something agnostics must live with: every human sees patterns where there are none; our senses and feelings leave us eternally susceptible to error; we reflexively use superstitions as coping mechanisms; we'll even rewrite memories to match our expectations. All that is well documented... if you trust the documentation ;-).

We say great truths have great value, though, so much value that to feel you know truth is to admit your disinterest in knowing truth. Every sentence we write would start with an "it seems" if we were up to wasting the effort. But, on the up side, there is honesty and humility for us in doubt. There is a resolve in the universe that you don't imagine has you in mind. There is nobility and respect in being torn apart by a tragedy, not pretending to know why it hit or if someone is, say, in a better place. There is meaning in a life that means what it says, and purpose to be found in the purpose you openly choose, and morality to be found in actions done for morality's sake, no reward and no punishment in mind.

In a way, there may even be a religious quality to my agnosticism. There is temptation and demons and hedonism for the agnostic, especially for agnostics in some cultures. Strong faith can feel really good; it can make you one of the group (or even keep you in your family). There is also the sacred for the agnostic in epistemological discipline and restraint. I'm also sure every agnostic is a sinner to their own principles; I'm guilty; no human gets through life without some sort of magical thinking (hey, it's agnostic original sin). Or maybe I'm just too used to framing things in religious terms... :-)

There, I'm done proselytizing.

Happy Hanukkah

I think one of the greatest aspects of being in a gay-headed family is one of the things people often deride: our inevitable lack of direct genetic relation. Like many other infertile couples, until science advances, at least one parent will always be genetically unrelated to their child (well, unrelated is misleading as humans share so many genes it's hard to quibble about a tiny percentage of single nucleotide polymorphisms, but some people do and you get the point).

I think nothing more shows the meaning of family, though, than the ability of some to get beyond those Darwinian urges and just love.

Which brings me to the fact that our boys are ethnically Jewish, and neither Rob or I are. We've debated back and forth how far into Jewish culture we should get, if at all. There's the idea that, because they are our children and genetics don't matter to either of us, we should just keep passing on our LDS-Christian-rural Salt Lake culture, green jello and all. There's also the idea that, because their genes carry some cultural baggage in the eyes of the greater public, we should change our culture to show how the child has changed our family, to show some sort of integration and pride to those who'd pick on yet another minority. Heck, when I was in High School, being Jewish was still a bit of a problem in Utah and such bias still hangs around, I'm sure.

So far, though, I've leaned towards just sticking with what we know.

I suppose these decisions are differently made when your child is visually put in a different racial category. Outsiders may continually remind them they are different from their parents and so it makes more sense for parents to take on a new cultural dynamic. While it's clear we're not all genetically related, we look to be in many of the other artificial categories; people tell us our boys almost look like clones of Rob and I. But the twins know how they came to be and they know they are, in significant part, ethnically Jewish, just as their dad is predominantly French and their pop is predominantly German/English. And they aren't shy telling people about such info. We've left no traumatic surprises about our family's history for them to have in the future and that's worked great so far; such facts are just facts to them now, like their eye color.

Recently their school began teaching about Hanukkah, though, along with Christmas and they were bringing home related work. The other day Brian sang us a song about the menorah and we asked if he thought we should light a menorah. At a yes, we researched the meaning behind it and consulted a Jewish friend, to make sure it wasn't any more offensive to Judaism for us to do so as it would be to Christianity for us agnostics to put an angel on our tree.

In the end, this year, we'll be incorporating one more culture into our holidays.

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find a menorah, or, well... you probably would, considering where we live. It wasn't easy, but we found one. This was the best we could find:
I'd like to have had something a bit more simple, but the kids like it.

Anyway, I now hope you all have a Happy Hanukkah!

(We're Chris Buttar's nightmare, aren't we?)

LDS Videotaped Conference: Go Viral

Young Mormons urged to join fight against gay marriage in California

In their videotaped conference M. Russell Ballard encouraged young member to "go viral" and told them "God will bless you as you do your part."

Why is not it clear to all how dangerous this is? God will bless you for campaigning against my family, for degrading the union of many children's parents? It is, at best, low to use God for such a goal and it's worse to bribe young people with supernatural rewards. The sad part is that, as one can see in many religions, you will get people to act against and alter their conscience with such talk. It's tried and tested.

Robert Chambers, an LDS area authority for Pocatello, Idaho, wrote in a letter to stake presidents in the Rexburg area. "We ask you to commit initially to a minimum of 150-200 volunteers from your stake."

I have to wonder what my brother and my father in-law are asking of their local members? How can I be around them on the holidays without knowing? If they truly do act to so directly to undermine our home, how could they come into it? This is a mess.

"If tolerance is the premise, it should go both ways," Bednar said. "There could be sanctions against us for teaching our doctrine."

This could almost be funny. Again, I've never once asked for your "tolerance", Bednar, and don't care how you or your faith regards my family or what you sanction in your church. Why can't anyone over there see that? We are asking for morality in your actions in the public sphere, in the sphere we have to share no matter how much sharing it disturbs you. We are asking that you follow the golden rule and stop doing to my family in law what you would never want done to yours.

The funny thing is that, with the LDS church's actions, they are making it far less likely that anyone will care to "tolerate" them down the line if they win this battle. If you want the world to do what you say, you should be an example.

Even more ironic is that the main fears they seem to be spreading regarding Prop 8, like children learning of homosexuality in kindergarten, are going to happen regardless. Our children go to school too. The LDS church seems to think gay marriage leads to gay parents, but why then is Utah in the top three states of the percentage of same-sex couples raising children? We have to live together and unless you want to get medieval, so to speak, our children will be going to school with yours and, just like yours, they should be able to talk about their families and your children should be civil, right?

"Because you are here tonight," Clayton said into the camera, "there is hope for the family."

Yeah, "the family"... I'm sure most watching could feel the love, and the sad thing is that that's not sarcasm. You can't get people to act like this without feeling good.

I'm tired of this. Worse than all that, this morning, after I read this and got all riled up, I was notably short tempered with our boys. They were goofing off while they should have been getting dressed for school and I raised my voice when I could have just refocused them. I'm disappointed in myself that I let the yes-on-8 crusade get into my home; it's just hard to hold the line without a couple minutes to digest new news.

I wonder if we can stay here, or, really, if we should? We are here for family, but there is a wedge there now, and the family we need most, my parents, are retired and willing to go where we go. Or maybe, again, I'm just frustrated and it'll look different later. Or maybe it'd be best for us all if I remained frustrated this time. I don't know.

It's funny; yesterday we were driving to soccer practice and Brian asked if we got new rings when his dad and pop got married in California (he wanted to know if the ring was new because I've told him he eventually can have either the my wedding band or the ring I got the day they were born). I told him no, that we only got married again in California to get new legal rights. He said, "so that we can be more safe and you can't break up?"

He was cheery and nonchalant about it, but I thought of what might happen in November and had to recompose myself before I could answer yes without my voice failing. I can't let them know about this threat, I don't want to tell them if they do take those legal rights away, and I don't want them to see my worry. But it speaks volumes that he has picked that much up, right? He gets it. This 6-year-old gets the importance of marriage, when a church of adults misses the point.

Reincarnation in the Classroom

[driving home from school]

Brian: "Papa, do some people think they were alive before they were born?"

Me: [curious as to where this is going, given that we have a bunch of little missionaries in his class] "Yes, they do. They think they lived in heaven."

Brian: "No, do they think they were, like, bugs and elephants?"

Me: [Okay, the little missionary's parents are New Age? And when did Brian start using "like"?] "Oh, yes. That's called reincarnation. Yes, some people believe that."

Brian: "[Namey Redactedson] said she was a cat" [a moment passes] "But that's not true."

Me: [Now my agnostic/skeptic chord is plucked; I don't want him to dismiss supernatural claims out of hand, and don't want him to do like a couple kids in his class and push his parent's religion on others, so I ask:] "How do you know that's not true, bub?"

Brian: "Because I don't remember I was a cat. Cats don't talk."

Me: "They don't, do they? But maybe [Namey] thinks she remembers being a cat. Maybe she just believes it. What if you remembered being a cat?"

Brian: "I think I would be dreaming. [with that adorable exaggerated incredulousness seen only in kids] How would my brain be in a cat?"

Me: [Thinking but never saying "That's my boy." I try my best to get them to think for answers in this area rather than give them a package of answers, which, in a way, is passing on my Agnosticism, I suppose :-).] "That is a puzzle. Did she give you any testable evidence? Maybe we could think about it."

Brian: "What is testable evidence?"

Me: [somehow not realizing I've overreached, and slipping way out of the boundary of appropriate 1st grade complexity] "Sometimes our brains can trick us into feeling some things are true when they are not, like when some kids think there are monsters. Did she tell you something everyone could do or observe to evaluate whether or not people can be cats before they are people? " [silent thought] "I mean, did she give you a fact that any person could objectively and reasonably defer to as a reason to think a person was reincarnated? If she did, then we could evaluate that evidence, and better decide how likely reincarnation is."

[Silence, as Brian tries to figure out the mess in what his Papa just said, and as we pull into the garage.]

Alan: [having been quiet all this time, and ready to put a period on this boring conversation] "I'm going to be a bird!.. Can I have a snack?"

Oh well :-). Not every day can have a profound message, and not every day can anyone get parenting right on key.

I am curious, though, New Age parents aside (as they're rare here), do LDS parents tell their children to talk to other children about their religion at school or does that just happen? It seems once a week we hear about their classmates talking about the "invisible face in the sky" and all the great things they're promised in heaven.

While, in general, I don't want my kids questioning another kid's faith at school, and I want them to be judicious about doing so if that kid pushed his/her faith first, I could see talk of reincarnation, heaven and invisible faces in the sky as great learning opportunities (as long as I don't blow it in getting too complex :-)). I don't mind that, even if the kids are told to proselytize in 1st grade. But when such talk of eventual rewards and invisible benefactors begins being tied to the faith that our family is supernaturally lacking, or non-ideal, or even evil or should never have been... I do worry about that. I'll have to bring my A-game that day.

Different Century, Same Tools

I was up at the library looking for editorials on race and came across a 1954 speech given at BYU by Mark Edward Petersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church. I found an online copy, here. I recommend those interested in the LDS leadership's thinking on gay civil rights issues take a look. The reasoning used today, if not the category by which discrimination is made, is strikingly familiar and telling.

To warn his audience, Elder Peterson starts out by quoting a black politician who indicates that there should be no law against interracial marriage, and even states they're prevalent in... any guesses?

That's right. Europe, a region, according to the last LDS press release supporting Prop 8, now being troubled by the anti-family effects of gay marriage (pff, as if).

After he's done with the quote he goes on:

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the oppor[t]unity of sitting down in a cafe where white people sit. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. From this and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that, we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that they used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace."

Isn't it striking how the issues change, doctrine changes, but 50 years later the tools of justification remain the same? Today, gay people don't want equal rights; they want special rights, and they want to marry right along with us and for us to embrace them and their sin. By tolerance and love they mean for us to embrace sin.

You can see the modern conservative LDS reaction to people like Carol Lynn Pearson at the end there. It takes such tactics to get people to excuse away the Golden Rule, harden their hearts, and do wrong to their neighbors--family even--against their conscience. Every abrahamic faith doing harm, from the inquisitions to modern killings of gays by Islamic governments, has ironically used something like Isa 5:20 to justify their cruelty, and we see such used here to justify racial segregation and anti-miscegenation ideas.

The same old message is that you can hurt those others, and their families; it's okay, good even. God approves. Elder Petersen even goes on to say it's for the children, as they do today with gay marriage. Oppose marriage for the children cursed, literally in this case, by living under their parent's union.

Elder Petersen then talks about the Chinese and how good they are for not wanting to marry white people, unlike black people. A similar tactic is used when people argue it's okay to hurt gay and lesbian headed families because they've convinced some LDS gays to be celibate or single. Why can't you be good, like them? Like the Chinese, they obey supernatural law, and that means you should too.

In this speech we, of course, see a lot of declarations about how the supernatural works, the plan of salvation, and the use of eternity to justify injustice. God segregated the races and His law "is eternal" and He is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" and He is "fair to all" and "will meet us according to what we deserve". Familiar, right? Just do what we men teach you; it's the only right way; it'll work out.

Elder Petersen quotes Joseph Smith to prove some races, like those coming from Africa, were sinners in the preexistence (we know this because we treated them as slaves) and thus our cruelty and laws of segregation are justified. God made people with certain attributes, based on the indelible quality of their spirit, and placed those spirits in certain races (or sexes), justifying our poor treatment of those who'd violate His segregation in interracial union (or not violate his segregation in same-sex unions).

The best thing about claiming and believing you have evidence from the supernatural or know what God really means has to be that you can justify about anything with magical thinking. Some people, including yours truly, can trigger that special spiritual feeling for just about anything in the freedom of their own mind. You can pose laws and use complicated worldviews that rival any book by Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. Black people can be segregated because of some great ethereal war, spirits are either boys or girls, and Xenu killed a bunch of people in a volcano making some feel depressed and others feel same-sex attraction (if you're a Scientologist :-)). Opponents who value skepticism and evidence are powerless against your authority and faith. How frustrating it must have been to be a black man in Utah back then.

Elder Petersen even goes on to say black people should be grateful and thankful. "In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life" God still lets the black man have some chance, even though they are "cursed as to the priesthood". "He will go there as a servant, but he will get a Celestial resurrection".

Similarly, gay men should feel grateful, not sad or upset with church leaders. Gays are bound by the same rules as everyone else. Black men are too and are facing the consequences for their pre-existent sins in Petersen's day, sins for which white men would be equally punished. Gay men can have a celibate life, and get their reward by marrying a girl with whom they'll have that sort of purposeful intimacy afforded by orientation, later, in heaven. Be grateful for what the leaders offers you in this life, and for what they promise in eternity. And, really, who can beat eternity? It's the infinite trump card and there's no doubt why most every faith picks it up and promotes it, and why most every skeptic of most every faiths is at a disadvantage for their epistemological restraint.

To top it off Elder Petersen uses the old "some of my best friends" tactic. He isn't hateful to black people; he feels love for them; he feels good about how he treats them and that matters (if only to him). He would even "be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it", just as you'll hear some express their generosity for letting gays even have freedom from incarceration, or capitol punishment (I last heard that one from a local LDS radio host). We should be grateful for such love, right? Elder Petersen even has a black friend, brother Hope. Just like LDS author, Orson Scott Card, who, because he works in the arts (of course...), has a lot of gay friends, friends he regards as defective and fights to keep their families from equal rights.

I'm sure, though, Elder Petersen may have had such a friend, and maybe Mr. Card does too. I'm sure some black friends back then meekly forgave such men; they, after all, had faith they and others like them deserved it. Personally I'd not choose even "to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car" with such a friend, but to each his own.

He Concludes:

Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro.

On the upside, magical thinking is not based in the stark facts of an outside world; only the mind needs be changed. Nevertheless, a supernatural worldview does best when it feels like an assuring, comforting, and immovable foundation, and so they are notoriously difficult to change on a scale smaller than a generation. But it doesn't have to actually be immovable. In fact, it can't be immovable or the worldview will fade away with all the thousands of other dead faiths of human history, as the LDS faith would likely have if it did not change with regards to race (or maybe even polygamy). They can change by generations and do; adherents will forgive and membership will grow.

Today, it seems the LDS church only advises against interracial marriage, here:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred)...”

(Though, "some of those are not an absolute necessity"? If only some aren't then which ones are necessity? Is there still an "absolute necessity" to keep from marrying some races, as Petersen claims, or is it class?)

But now look at how long that change from absolutely against to advising against and granting the priesthood took on race, and then consider how quickly the LDS church is moving on same-sex marriage in comparison. Just 4 years ago they were against any legal recognition of same-sex unions. Today they are still against "marriage" but now "The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights..." That's not yet equal rights for our families, but I couldn't have imagined the LDS church of my youth ever taking such a liberal stance on gay rights and so quickly.

Still, sure, there's a good ways to go and a lot in the way. I've mixed feelings to find the same tools repeatedly used to block that path to equal rights. It's annoying that such tactics still live on to have any effectiveness in the hearts and minds of people today, but, to the credit of the LDS people, it's comforting to know such tools have eventually failed, as they should.

A Note to the LDS Church

The LDS church has put out more info on their hope to limit marriage to heterosexually headed families, Here. Thanks for pointing me to it MoHoHawaii (or maybe I should be mad at you; I've not yet decided). I'll jump right in.

"The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

That's not advocating for equal rights and it's smartly worded so they can wiggle out of any one of them, but there's a big step for them there. I'll give them much credit for that.

Only four years ago, during the Amendment 3 debate (an amendment which took away marriage and any other "substantially equivalent" rights), they had a chance to speak up for these rights and say exactly this. They only spoke up for denying marriage and added:

"any other sexual relations, including between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of family."

The message sent was clear, they knew what their followers heard and they were just fine with letting the enforcement of denying all those other rights stand. I am grateful they have made this step towards "Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people".

"The Divine Institution of Marriage"

There's not much to say about the supernatural points, save that we all have different knowledge about the supernatural and it should not be used to impose law on others and limit the rights of those to practice their faith, or lack thereof. We may as well argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

In that section though, I would find it interesting to know how they choose their research. Out of all the research on families out there, much of it on children of same-sex parents, they have 4 (!) references, and make the logically fallacious comparisons to single mothers, quoting from what seem to be the weakest and most biased sections of any research, the discussion. This is a total misrepresentation of what's out there and I'd love to know how such was defended (or if it needed to be).

"Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom"

"Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples."

This is a case of you just not listening, or putting up straw men.

Search my blog, or isocrat.org for "tolerance." This isn't about "tolerance" or your love; this is about men and women trying to protect their families from your real world attacks. I get that when you feel you are God's representatives, it can color your vision. There are many other Gods with representatives on this earth though. I'm sure you're fine people, but you are strangers. I don't care how you feel about me, if you can tolerate me, if you "condone" my family, or how good you feel in still loving me despite my "sin". This whole "gay marriage is all about getting my approval" angle is really weird. I do care, though, about how you concretely affect my children and my husband, and the many other families I know you are advocating harm towards with your political actions.

Aside: Isn't quoting Jesus a bit problematic when you're tying to mobilize a huge group against equal treatment of our families? You think same-sex relations are evil, right? Even assuming you're right, yes, Jesus did say "go and sin no more"; he also said "resist not evil." I don't agree with Him here either, but trying to put Jesus' seal of approval on a huge political action campaign against a large group of people who just want equal treatment from their government, well, even if that could possibly be a posed as a fight against evil, it strains the imagination. WWJD, indeed.

"We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage. "

I'm glad you can, really. But surely you can see that, while it means something, it's not much to know a stranger out to legally diminish my family feels love. There are historical accounts of the love felt for the sinner when they were being tortured and burned to death for "sodomy". Simply, your love doesn't mean much when your actions might annul my marriage. I really want to know if you can you see that. (as if anyone is listening :-))

As for religious freedom, I'm right with you. But your beef is with anti-discrimination laws, not marriage. No one, for example, is forcing the catholics to marry divorced couples. If a church isn't taking public money, they should even be able to discriminate against mixed race marriages, and I don't want the government in religion any more than you do. But look, you pulled this pendulum, over the decades, strongly towards your end and hurt a lot of gay people in the past, and I get that you may be afraid if you let go it may swing too far in the other direction. I want it to stop where I have my family with equal treatment and you have your religious freedom, no more and no less. We could work together to that end, instead of trying to pull each other off our footing.

"Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions."

So? Let them suggest; you know people suggest all sorts of crazy things. I can't hold it against you that people suggest the Levitical death penalty be put in place for homosexuals, right? Again, this is not about marriage, but anti-discrimination laws.

"Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished."

What I don't get is this. Two churches perform a wedding, and the government looks into the sexual anatomy of those involved and decides to recognize only one church's union but not another's. You don't see that as religious discrimination? Is it because you think they aren't "true" churches? What if the government did that to your weddings? You are free to perform your weddings how you like. No church synagogue or mosque has been forced into same-sex unions. It is fear mongering to suggest otherwise.

"How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?"

"“It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain."

Really, it is?

"The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally."

FULL STOP. Why no reference here? Why no data? It seems very suspicious, as though you know what's there and didn't want to share anything but innuendo. Look at the data right from their censuses and try to tell us this again. I have to hope you aren't simply counting on the average person not looking further into this, because that above statement is fiction, to put it kindly, and if you honestly are studying the issue, carefully, as you say, you should know that.

"there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. "

I'm all ears, to read about what my concerns as a parent should be.

"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children."

Great, you've given one way in which man-women marriages are just like man-man marriages. Of course, you don't mean to insinuate otherwise, and demean our families, right? Gosh I hate PC language.

"Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment."

Sadly, you are either not listening to us, or misrepresenting us, and in a piece meant to "reduce misunderstanding".

"By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."

So? If you think raising, loving, and nurturing children who aren't similar to you in their genetic code is some sort of weakness, I guess we truly do differ in our moral codes.

" It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children"

Some? In Utah, of cohabitating same-sex couples, we're talk about 40% and that number has certainly grown since the 2000 census. Only 49% of all marriages are currently raising children. Let me put that in other terms; Utah, with our anti-adoption for gay couples and anti-marriage equality laws is 3rd in the nations when it comes to the percentage of cohabitating same-sex couples raising children. You are trying to minimize and misrepresent our families. You are, ironically, treating the fact that we have children and will keep becoming parents in greater numbers as a minor consideration here.

"Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation."

Then you should be advocating legal marriage for the parents in our families too.

"By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children."

At least you admit you don't know. You do know, though, you start out talking all nice, and then you go and insult the moral character of a man's child. Do you think we're somehow a wildly different sort of humans than you? That we wouldn't notice? You didn't mean it like that? Are you going to retreat and go back to "there's just something missing, neither good nor bad"? Spin it as carefully as you like but you can't both be the good guy and the bad guy here; these children and their parents hear you loud and clear, even if you're counting on others to make excuses for and ignore such tangled messages.

As to your other concerns about our children. Much, and I mean a lot, of research has shown no difference in their "gender development". You found some research to quote above; why not here? And what do you mean by "social identity"? Do you mean they may correctly identify they are children of same-sex parents, just as other children correctly identify they are children of LDS parents? Such words, not defined, come off in the imaginations of your followers as all sorts of crazy things; they teach their children such things and those children go to school with my children. Do you see that? When you're vague most followers fill in the voids in a way that most demeans our children.

Oddly, I both hope you know and don't know that.

"As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula."

You mean not only may gay people have equal treatment, but their children in our schools may be given consideration too? Come on. My kids' class read and Tango Makes Three (without us asking) last year as one of many books. Yes, right here in Utah. It was one book in hundreds, and such inclusion has nothing to do with legal marriage and everything to do with humane treatment of all children, and creating an environment where all children can feel comfortable enough to learn reading writing and arithmetic without bigotry getting in the way. Is the LDS church against that? What, in schools are they actually against? You have to be specific. True, if you're not, there's less room to change doctrine when you need to, but your followers will often assume the worst otherwise.

People, even gay couples, will simply have children regardless of the government's okay. Those children should be able to talk about their family at school too. There is only one way to make them and your growing problem here disappear, but if you want to know what an actual society's erosion and collapse looks like, you just try to take our children from their homes.

" Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty."

Well... Eh, the irony and de-family-ing of our families just gets too thick towards the end there to go on.

Anyway, the sad part is I'm sure the author of this felt, deep in the cockles of their heart, they were showing "love, kindness and humanity toward all people." They felt such white-on-white warmth even when insulting other's children, and cherry picking and misrepresenting the research, of which they choose a very tiny amount (though enough to fool the casual reader that science was on their side).

I know I went off half-cocked here and may regret pressing publish in an hour or two. But, eh, I've got to go and want to stop feeling distracted by this, I'll feel better doing something too :-).

At least they are moving their position a step towards civil unions. It's just frustrating. Frustrating and sad.

Isaiah 47:13-14

Before I biases you, and if you're game, you may want to take the test that I'll be writing about here:

The Inverse Astrology Test

You done? My results you ask? Well, okay (I can't get the table to work here for some reason, but):

Your Inverse Astrology Results from Isocrat.org:

Aries - 47.8%

Taurus - 63.5%

Gemini - 49.1%

Cancer - 55.9%

Leo - 48.6%

Virgo - 76.3%

Libra - 50.5%

Scorpio - 52.7%

Sagittarius - 40.2%

Capricorn - 63.4%

Aquarius - 46.6%

Pisces - 43.1%

You claim to be an Aquarius but we predicted Virgo. Please consult a parent or guardian as to your actual date of birth.

Turns out my parents are liars, and I was born a Virgo (I guess, then, my real birthday is coming up, if you want to get me anything... Just say'n).

So why do such a "test"?

Among the many reasons I wanted to have something like Isocrat.org was that I missed having a place to just put random stuff that interested me. That's why we have individual author hubs, just for random stuff that has nothing to do with GLBT concerns. There were about 5 years in our life when being gay wasn't a noticeable issue. But, in that time, I was still a guy up for questioning various faiths, long before our parenthood made it a practical priority.

One day a pregnant friend told me that she was sure she and her child will not get along, because that child was going to be born with a certain sun sign, one that she believed conflicted with her own. It shocked me, and I kept thinking about it. She got the idea from reading astrology books that describe a person's personality by their sun sign. Like many people who have faith in astrology, she had read the descriptions, picked out adjectives that she thought described her, ignored the rest, and, there you have it, proof in astrology. People do this all the time with all sorts of faiths; they remember the hits and forget or excuse the misses.

So I thought about how one could demonstrate this was a wrong way to come to a belief, and I came up with my inverse astrology test. A detailed explanation of the test is here, methods here, and the averaged results of all who've taken the test here. So far Astrology is batting zero.

Anyway, just a little diversion, but I hope it's somewhat illustrative and I'd love to know what some of you end up with (and if there are any bugs to be found in the test).

(I'm sorry if I've offended a reader's belief in this bit of the supernatural with this post. Sometimes I fear I get too used to being innately offensive to most people's ideas of the supernatural, and may not know when I've gone too far. Nevertheless, once people start making real world choices and judgments for their various faiths, particularly stuff like entering parenthood with prejudice against your child, it kind of puts it up for grabs, right? If that's not how you use astrology, I've no argument with you.)

Why it got to me.

Yesterday's announcement by the LDS church that members should "do all they can" to make sure our families are kept from equal rights in the California constitution upset me more than I've been upset by such in a long time. I stayed up late last night upset (Utah does need a MSDS; I wonder how much shorter my life will be for such stress :-), or maybe :-\).

I'm used to groups attacking us with that false shallow veneer of concern for my children. I'm used to them doing it with no veneer. I'm used to the LDS church doing it. True, I was hoping, based on rumor, that there would be more just treatment outside the church, or at least political hands off our families with the new leadership, and I'm sad that's not the case. Also substantially, we are about to get married there in California, after 16 years as a couple and 13 married. We've waited a long time. To have that giddy joy of feeling like you're so close and then have it mixed with what feels like a punch in the gut from an organization you once trusted and that strongly influences the minds of much of your family, well, the punch in the gut stings all the more, even if you were once used to it.

Mainly, it was the fact that we just got back from Rob's family reunion. We just spent a wonderful weekend with my in-laws in Park City. I love his family and I know the feeling is mutual, and they have come to know we belong together. They've told Rob, that they don't understand how, but through prayer they've no problem with us as a couple, even if that is contrary to what church leadership is teaching, and I'm fine with that truce.

But now we get home and find the leaders of the LDS church (the church of my in-laws and much of my family) are asking them to do all they can to legally diminish my family, to hurt us, their son, me, and their grandchildren. Their leaders are asking that of Rob's siblings too. The cousins our boys were laughing and playing with all weekend, they are also now being asked to "do all you can" to annul our upcoming legal union, to in effect harm our whole family. They are being told to view our children as somehow defective or deficient.

I hope I never learn of any of them donating financially or physically to that cause, though I know the church they give money to already has and will. They, many of our loved ones, are already funding this. It's sick, undermining to families (and demonstratively, in the real world, not merely mystically), and it is why this upset me as much as it did. I was feeling good about the people in the LDS church in my life, now I have to watch and see once again where they go from here.

It's just tough not being in your culture's predominant faith. I'm sure it always has been hard, and far worse than we have it today, from the gentile killed by Moses for collecting sticks on the sabbath to the youth from another tribe headed up the side of a volcano to "appease" a force of nature. You're told you have to be hurt or hurt another. Why? For the good of everyone else, of course. You're not selfish, right? You want the tribe to have a good crop, you don't want your city to be destroyed, or, in this case, you want to do right by some proposed supernatural fertility law. But when a person is unwilling to do such harm on faith, even when it feels good, they have a problem. What's worse for them is that faith has never meant to be verifiable anyway; it has done a lot of work over centuries to not be verifiable outside our all too potent tools of self assurance. There are centuries of effective tools of confidence in place, social proofs and so on. There are even many failsafes: "Your faith in Allah is wanning? Well you must be under the temptation of a demon then. That proves demons exist and thus faith in Allah is true." But there is no real test by which two people can surrender in equal deference to evidence.

In the end, the guy at the side of the volcano arguing that "Hey, the last ten virgins you threw in had no effect on our crop yield" isn't going to stop those with the strongest faith. That only means you need more virgins. Heck, he'd be lucky to not end up being a little extra bit of "appeasement" in the more brutal days of humanity. At least things are far from that bad. But the situation is sadly similar for the guy who doesn't hold the faith of those around him, when that faith asks that one neighbor harm another.

Nevertheless, here's to hoping my in-laws aren't or don't become as ardent of followers as to attack the family with which they just spent a wonderful weekend. I just have to hope they can somehow keep their faith and just treatment of our family too.

Between Bacon and Breathing (Human Sacrifice, 3 of 3)

Giving up breathing is a big deal, and bacon, well, not so much. At the one extreme I think it’s a moral obligation to intervene; at the other we should probably keep even our opinions to ourselves. So what am I supposed to do in the middle ground? What is the right response?

And, of course, we are here in the middle ground. I look at all the blogs of gay Mormons and see some people struggling with their sacrifices, some giving up a lot for their ideas of faith. It’s a religious sacrifice somewhere between giving up bacon and breathing, but not really near either; though it does, at times, play the major role in a suicide. What is the right response from a guy like me?

The way I see it, and I really am working such out as I type (so be lenient :-)), there are a couple options when confronted with any faith-based sacrifice.

1. Keep your mouth shut and hands to yourself. I don’t care to debate, even on my own ground, the virtue or villainy of an exposed head of female hair, drinking tea, or eating bacon, as long as people are free to partake of or avoid either. It’d have to be some really good miracle bacon to warrant more.

2. Speak up against it on your own turf. I guess I’d actually place a religious sacrifice of one’s orientation here. I feel I’m obligated to speak out against such a substantial life-altering sacrifice on my turf, or neutral ground, particularly for what I’ve witnessed in my past (e.g.). Elsewhere, I should probably keep my distance from that topic, and just focus on being supportive in other ways. I feel this way because there’s no real arguing with any matter of faith, and, besides, the last thing you want is a gay man following his orientation while still believing it wrong. The sacrifice may hurt, but to only partially convince anyone otherwise would hurt worse. Furthermore, there are some instance where I think sacrificing one’s orientation can be the right thing to do, depending on the circumstances of families already in existence and the personalities involved. No, gays should not go to the home of such faiths and proselytize :-), and, though I’ve tripped up in places, I think I’ve done an okay job of backing my radical pro-gay agenda, if not my self, out of internet homes that would disagree, and have advertized their position clearly.

This is also where I’d put, say, a woman’s willing sacrifice of her education or basic human rights for religious reasons. But how many times have I brought that up? Sure, my passions are biased.

3. Speak up against it on their turf. Confrontation. There’s a difference between the person sacrificing for a faith in private, and the person telling others they should do the same, particularly when the second person isn’t actually willing to sacrifice the equivalent thing in their life. But is it enough to take this next step? For orientation? I’m not sure; here’s where I’d split hairs. If the person is advocating others sacrifice their orientation, and I see they’re doing so using lies about the real world, particularly when they’re about what gay people do and who they are, thereby attacking my home in the process, I’m more than willing to go to their soap box and confront. If they’re using faith alone, then there’s not much point in arguing; I should probably keep away. Though, if they’re using faith to advocate others do harm to anyone else, by law or other means, I think I’ve another reason to be confrontational.

4. Personally and physically get in their way. Here’s where I’d put the extreme questions of religious sacrifice. I’d wrestle the poison out of the hand of the Jonestown citizens, with absolutely zero, if not negative concern for their religious freedom. I’d rationalize this by the fact that a person next month is not completely the same person they are this month, and I have to believe saving that future person’s right to life is worth to them the violation of the current person’s right to practice their faith. But yeah, it’s a bad rationalization, and I also think their faith is bunk, worse than bunk. It’s a bit of religious bias I’d have without shame. Should I feel like a bigot for that?

FYI, I’d not put orientation in category 4 under any circumstance. No worries, my MoHo brothers, I’ll not hunt you down and throw naked men at you.

5. As a society, we should get in their way. I have a problem with government banning religious practices, though those that end in the practitioner’s death test my limits. Really, most mainstream religions, in theory, ask for a person’s life. Muslims are to be in complete submission to Allah, and Christians are to be willing to give up life for Christ. I know people who promised to slit their throats for the old ceremonies of the predominant religion. Most religions simply do ask for that sort of dedication to the organization, for understandable reasons, and I don’t think government should get involved in telling any adherent they cannot make such covenants. Even if they follow through, if a sane person wants to kill themselves for Allah, or Christ, or whatever they believe in, I’ll go as far as #4, but I’d worry about government getting into the business of banning self-targeted religious practice of most any sort.

Does that mean I’ll not go far enough? I’m not sure.

I hate it, but I don’t think it’s my government’s place to mandate, say, a blood transfusion for an adult Jehovah’s Witness. If a faith asks for you to kill someone else, like your children, of course the government should stop you. I think our government, as it did with the KKK, should also play a role when the religious leader encourages assaults on the life and liberty of a follower’s neighbor. I would even like to see government crack down on anyone like Jim Jones, using religion to get people to sacrifice their lives. But for law to stop the individual from following their faith, when it’s only their selves they directly harm? I don’t like where that road goes.

Of course, thinking on it more, all this means I’d have Abraham arrested before he got Isaac to Moriah, and I’d have Moses in jail for killing children, not to mention that unfortunate gentile he caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath. You have to draw the line somewhere, though, and where a religion starts to ask for your neighbor’s life is as fine a place as any; even at the off chance you upset the supernatural.

Anyway, I don’t know if I settled anything, but at least I feel more organized about what a guy should do in such instances. What he should feel is another issue altogether. It’s just tough, some days, to watch someone starve when you see no reason for it.

I suppose it’s the universal curse of having to watch a human give up anything for beliefs or lack thereof, from near any outsider’s perspective. All religions think those not in their group are sacrificing something wonderful, and I’m sure I’m regarded the same way by a Muslim, Mormon, Methodist, or even, extreme as it is, a person about to drink poison for their reward. Each claim to have special spiritual evidence that those who don’t hold their particular faith are sacrificing something far greater than what their organization asks of them; they have to. We’ll all be in some faith’s hell, after death, and I’m sure they cringe at the idea of my eventual pain too. They too have to figure out how to respond. To my point of view, though, the pain is all too apparent now, in religious sacrifices from the Muslim’s hunger to the Jonestown suicide. There’s no need to wait for promises to come true, from my perspective; I just hope I know how to rightly respond.

Breathing (Human Sacrifice, 2 of 3)

Unfortunately the story of religious sacrifice isn’t always as benign as dietary restrictions.

A while ago I watched a documentary on the Jonestown tragedy (to head off trouble, I’m not saying Jones’ church is the same sort of creature as any mainline church, Muslim, LDS, or otherwise; it’s a very extreme case and chosen to the other extreme when compared to my first example). For those who don’t remember, this was a religious community led by Jim Jones. He eventually moved his congregation to Guyana. From there a congressman along with a group of reporters and concerned family visited Jonestown. Some were murdered on Jones’ orders.

Here you can listen Jones explain what’s to be done next, and I think all adults should. A warning: it’s emotionally difficult.

To Mr. Jones (or at least his followers), God had told him US troops were on their way to kill everyone, and he, “speaking as a prophet,” told his followers in order to conquer death and the enemies of good, they had to willingly sacrifice their life, “just like Jesus.” A lone woman, Christina, can be heard protesting in this recording, particularly “for the babies.” She makes her case, and it brought me to tears, but she is powerless in the face of the group’s unflinching faith. As happens so many times under questioning, she’s told she just has to trust. And how can she argue? God gives commandments and humans should follow. She’s even shouted down by fellow believers. Get that? People actually argue with her as to why they should kill themselves and their children.

In the end over 900 people were dead. Some adults were forced to take in poison. Some fed it to their children. But many just put it to their lips willingly.

There really aren’t words to adequately qualify such an event; it’s one of those pits of thought. I’d imagine this degree of unshakable, propelling faith in a religion is alien to most in the modern world (well, in the west). To me, it should speak to the false nature of that belief. In my experience, it’s not truth that’ll ask you for such a show of strong belief. Truth doesn’t care to be safe from objective investigation; it welcomes doubt and is steadfast for your belief or none at all. But for some I’m sure the sort of conviction shown by Jones’ followers was attractive (before the end). It’s a well known sort of human reflex, to take surrounding human’s conviction as evidence, and it often works to reasonable ends in mundane life, though an advertiser here and there may abuse it (They call the tool “Social Proof” ).

The thing that haunts me with this event is that I can’t blow this off as a 100% group of nuts. There were a lot of bodies, in the end. Undoubtedly, there were many intelligent people among them, and it would be a huge mistake to write them all off as crazed or dimwitted. In fact, intelligence, like any human tool, is there at the mercy of the will; it will work towards what you want, not necessarily what is right or rational. It is a common error of most people to assume those who believe false faiths do so for stupidity. Most often it is actually their significant intelligence that helps them remain recalcitrant. Without it they’d never find those the loopholes of empiricism, construct the necessary self-mystifications, or be able to talk others into following. These people had their faith, it gave them their reasons, and they applied their intelligence to decide they were doing good, well-intentioned work of God.

What’s worse is that Jonestown is nothing in comparison to what’s occurred in human history. There have been centuries of willing (and forced) human sacrifice for ideas, hopes, promises that never come true, from the crusades to those events involving religions only an archeologists would now remember. People even give all for faith in extraterrestrials. The intricacy, certainty, and conviction in such thinking is astounding on one level, but all too human on another, a potential that sits in all of us and of which I’m sure we’ve not seen the end.

The above example of religious sacrifice is the other extreme, in contrast to the first example. Of course, I can’t justify getting in the way of dietary restrictions; I don’t even want to. Such sacrifice is not near my business. On the other hand, I do feel obligated to get in the way of the sort of sacrifice for faith in this post. It can be as indiscriminate a killer as a bomb in a crowd. Respect for religion and personal conviction be damned. I’ll get in the way if I can. I can’t sit back and let people use the tools of faith to take lives, even if it’s only suicide. I’d attack that religion and its leaders, forcefully and publically. Is that wrong? Is that intolerant, or totalitarian even?

I do know Christina, in that tape, is among the people I know next to nothing about but respect. I’ve thought about her often since I first heard that recording. She should have gone further, shown more opposition. She should have called her fellow followers to reason, and said what we all know she’d realized but didn’t say: that their faith was wrong here. Nevertheless, she showed a lot of courage to buck social proof and challenge her community. Jones says how much he appreciates her; of course, he “likes an agitator” because she shows them “both sides of the issue.” He pretends to promote free will and to have nothing to fear in her questioning, but I have to hope, given enough time, given enough reasoning, he would have something to fear, and Christina could have saved many lives with a bit more disrespect for the beliefs of those living them.

Okay, there are the two extremes, and I react differently to both. It may seem that the answer is simple, but what if it’s not drinking poison? What if it’s refusing a blood transfusion for a faith? There is a gradient, not a step, all the way back to the bacon. So how to decide what to do in the middle; that’s what I’m hoping to work out next.

Yes, I know such posts get too long, but they're mainly for working things out for myself :-). I'll be done soon.

Bacon (Human Sacrifice, 1 of 3)

One of my friends is a conservative Muslim. We met volunteering for the same organization and hit it off right from the start; in fact, as unlikely friends we would be, I’d say we get along better than any other two people in this organization. Sure, some topics are probably no use for us to enter, but we share a work ethic and many common values and, together, have accomplished much beyond those communities that’d claim us. She is, in fact, my bad cop.

This friend wears full dress, even in July. I’ve never seen her hair, and she never shakes the hand of a man, even a gay one :-). In fact I have to watch myself that I don’t inadvertently, say, tap her on the shoulder when I want to get her attention. Often we’re fed by the organization for which we volunteer, but even if, say, ham is adjacent to an acceptable sandwich on a deli plate, she’d not touch it; she’ll go hungry all day. I hate to watch her do that, but that’s what she gives up for her faith.

Now, I’ve read the Koran a couple times. I’ve found it to be an amazing work, particularly considering its purported origins, and I could certainly say I found and felt the glinting strands of inspiration, truth, and morality running through it, as I do in every religious text I’ve read. But I’m not a Muslim, and, as any non-Muslim would, I think for good reason. While she feels she has had some personal, confirming experience with her God, and, while I’d take her word on most things, I don’t believe it here. Not near that she is dishonest--no way--she’s amongst the most honest, intelligent, and dependable people I know. I’m sure she feels something; I’m near sure everyone who makes such sacrifices does. I also personally know how you can cause yourself to feel something, and how easy it is to motivate oneself and inadvertently color one’s memory when the stakes are as high as eternity and fate has placed you in any tradition of faith.

I, in my tradition, have had many a ham sandwich and I have zero moral qualms for that fact. I’d even say placing such sacrifices into the realm of morality is morally wrong. It weakens the entire body of ethics, and it gets me upset to think of the ulterior reasons some manipulate people’s hope to do good with what, to me, are rules there to support a human organization, not morality or God. To play with such can be useful for leaders, but it can do a lot of unintended harm. In fact, I’d wager falsely calling something or some group evil has caused far more human tragedy than falsely calling something good.

Humans do naturally develop a deep and important sense of fairness (ask any 5-year-old ;-)). It’s vital to our everyday life as a social species, and most feel it deeply. We can even image the areas of our brain that work out such morality. And it motivates; following rules and exercising self control can, ironically, feel good, as it plays off this sense of morality, even if the sacrifice isn’t based in moral reasoning.

Leaders and organizations, secular and religious, use these tools in the morality kit all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with right or wrong, consciously or not. They build group unity and identity, separate people culturally from the influence of those not in the organization, increase group numbers (typically with sex laws), and make members feel good about being a member for abstaining from even false evils, particularly with the idea of pleasing God and/or receiving reward. To me, it’s for such reasons some organizations mix stuff like “don’t wear linen with wool” in with “don’t murder.”

Here, though and gratefully, with my Muslim friend we’re talking about ham, headscarves, and handshakes. While she sacrifices more for her faith than most (you should see her by the end of Ramadan!), she’s not hurting anyone and it’s none of my business. It’s simply far from liberation to tear the headscarf from someone choosing to wear it and free to leave it off; it’s nearer assault.

Furthermore, my ham-philia and homosexuality somehow aren’t an issue for her; nor has it gotten in the way of our friendship. I don’t know if such was an issue before our friendship or if she harbors some “hate the sin” reasoning and I don’t care to, but she’ll support equal rights for my family, if not call it supernaturally equal. The consequences of what, to her, are serious commandments about her behavior, sex, food, and dress, straight from God, delivered by His prophet, are just not that pressing for her neighbors… As long as she doesn’t try to pass some sort of Defense of Meat Act (DOMA) to put her religious belief about ideal meals into her neighbor’s kitchen.

I certainly do feel and should say that I find her guiding moral here wrong, in my own life, and eroding to morality on whole. But hey, she thinks I eat abominably; I’ll call it even. In considering her life, though, I have to look at it a bit differently. I can’t keep how I regard those few ethics of hers that concern me in mind when I love so much else about her. Her sincerity, strong testimony, and, of course, friendship make those rules important and serious to me too. I’ll tell her if I saw a slice of ham near her sandwich. I’d even take that bullet and eat it for her :-).

End of part 1 of 3. I’ll work my way to a point, eventually.