Ever since gay marriage became an issue, I’ve shared the opinion with anyone who asked that government should not be in the business of regulating marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. You don’t see the government regulating baptisms and Catholic Communion (except Connecticut maybe). Why should the government stick its nose into who you marry? It’s a pretty militant libertarian stand, and I really never believed it would catch on anywhere.

California has proved me wrong! If 700,000 signatures can be collected we’ll get a referendum on the ballot that, if passed, would make California the first state to do away with civil marriage. Those are two big IFs, but I never expected this idea to even go this far. This proposed referendum is the idea of two college students in southern California. And they’re not gay, apparently. They made sure to slip that in.

I would be very surprised if this thing got 700,000 people to sign it, and I can’t believe there’s any way in the world it will pass. Most of the prop 8 supporters will see it as a spiteful attack on marriage. I would bet some of the no-on-8 crowd will call it a cowardly retreat. What disappoints me though is the justification these two students gave for their proposal. I don’t see this as the equal rights issue they claim it to be. This is a question of government intrusion. What justification is there for government to involve itself in religion? And yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. Don’t tell me it is a civil right or is ordained by the government. Marriage wasn’t created by an ancient Babylonian bureaucrat. Marriage evolved from religion. Your religion should decide who you can marry, not your government. And spare me the argument that government must propagate the stable family unit. Government derives its authority from the will of the people. If the people want to be a bunch of unmarried sluts, its not the place of government to tell them no. Society should influence the government, but the government should not influence society.

So really these two kids stumbled upon the libertarian solution. I doubt they realize that, and they probably would try to shy away from it if confronted. I suppose I should be content that people would embrace this idea, but I’m not. It just doesn’t feel right if people support it for the wrong reason.

As another Festivus passes I’m a bit concerned about what it means. Strictly speaking, Festivus has no meaning. It was conjured up by a comedy writer working for Seinfeld. It exists to make Frank Costanza look that much crazier.

In the years since Seinfeld went off the air, Festivus has been kept alive by some diehards. I always considered the holiday pretty hilarious. I’ve never celebrated it but it seemed like a good excuse to have fun with friends. Yet to my amazement it seems that some people are starting to look at Festivus as serious competition for Christmas. I was reading a post on Hot Air suggesting Festivus be adopted as an “official” atheist holiday. That itself is ridiculous, but scary were some of the reader comments in that post.

No thank you.

I and my family will continue to celebrate Christmas as we always have… with a few symbolic gift exchanges (with a few special gifts for the kids), giving to those in need (all year round but especially celebrating it in Jesus’ name at this time), and most of all, remembering that the true and sole reason for ‘Christmas’ is to celebrate Jesus Christ, our lord and savior, whom was born into this world, and died in this world, so that we may all have eternity in heaven… if we/you CHOOSE to.

Amen!

FlatFoot on December 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM

My only question…. why even, in half hearted jest, adopt a device written into a script for a comedy that was admittedly about nothing? Oh , unless, you assume my faith is nothing?…..I’m sure that wasn’t anyone’s intent? hmmmmm?

MNDavenotPC on December 23, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Jude 18 – How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I’m not offended by Festivus, if anything, I find it sad and pathetic.

But I think I understand why some are offended.

First off, Christmas ITSELF has been transformed from a religious to a secular holiday.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, now there is a ‘joke’ holiday to even further remove people from Christmas.

And, is it REALLY a puzzlement to some why a ‘joke’ pointed toward a day believed holy by many people…

…is considered a bit offensive?

Sure, some need to grow thicker skin, but when something you hold very, very dear is made fun of…

…people tend to get a little cranky.

Religious_Zealot on December 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM

But Christmas isn’t being made fun of. Christmas’s insane commercialism is. Festivus was only invented, in the mythology anyway, because Frank Costanza was fighting with another parent over a toy to give as a Christmas present. Frank had to get away from that rampant competition over gifts. I suppose a sober minded person could have suggested having Christmas without the gifts, but then we wouldn’t have much of a Seinfeld episode now would we?

Festivus is hilarious and meaningless, and doesn’t preclude anyone from also celebrating Christmas. It’s just an excuse for a party really. Why complain about that? Sulking and lecturing others about the “evils” of Festivus is so petty.

SERENITY NOW!

With Eliot Spitzer on our minds it seems appropriate to talk about sins. The Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed seven new “social sins” for our modern world. These seven make it tough for me to pigeonhole the church. There’s some definite leftist economic stuff in there, but there’s also some social conservative stuff too. Then there is the pro-environmental stance. I find it all a bit schizophrenic.

1. Bioethical violations such as birth control

This position isn’t new, and it’s certainly not winning the hearts and minds of today’s progressives. If I understand this right, it seems to condemn genetically modified food as sinful too.

2. Morally dubious’ experiments such as stem cell research

Now this is the 21st century way of reminding us that the RC Church hates science. It doesn’t matter if stem cell research will cure disease or save lives. It doesn’t even matter if no embryos are damaged in the research. We’re just not supposed to know.

3. Drug abuse

Here’s the silver lining. Drug abuse is a sin, not drug use. So if you’re a strung-out meth-head, yeah you’re a sinner. However it seems that God has no problem if you take a little ecstasy at a weekend party.

4. Polluting the environment

I don’t know where this came from. I can’t recall the RC Church ever taking a pro-environmental stance before 2000. I guess this is their new policy to get back into the public’s good graces. Everyone really is going green.

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

These last three are really just old time socialism. I don’t see why religion should get involved in economics. I know Jesus had no problem condemning rich people, but I didn’t think it was because they existed. I thought it was a critique of greed and being stingy with charity. Why would God care about what kind of economic system we use anyway? If everything in this world is supposed to be temporary and inconsequential, then how we choose to divide up money shouldn’t matter in the afterlife.

These three sins are pretty vague too. Why is it a sin to contribute to the wealth divide? Is any contribution a sin? If I’m rich, does that mean I’m sinning every time I earn money, even if it’s passive? If my stocks go up today, did I sin? If I sold property at a profit, did I sin? And where is the dividing line? Is everyone who is above the average income considered a sinner or is there some threshold? And what if my actions make the rich richer, but I don’t benefit?

Excessive wealth is now a sin, but what is “excessive”? That’s so vague it’s meaningless. Are the billionaires evil, but not me with a mere $500 million in assets? Do you count paper wealth like stocks or only hard assets? I guess this sin only applies to people right? It seems awfully hypocritical for the Catholic Church to denounce excessive wealth as it sits atop billions of dollars.

Then there is creating poverty. This is just bizarre. Who goes around creating poverty? If I choose to buy cheap coffee, does that cheapness make me a sinner? After all if I insist on low prices for my coffee (or any commodity really), that forces the coffee growers to lower the prices of their beans. I am creating their poverty by refusing to pay more, and apparently that’s a sin. This can apply to all Walmart shoppers too. If you go there to buy your cheap, plastic crap, you’re just going to cause poverty down the chain.

Maybe this sin applies to a situation where corporate executives move a manufacturing plant from one place to another. The town that loses the factory becomes poor, which would be the sin, but I guess creating new jobs in another town doesn’t cancel that out. Are those people in the new town, who fill these jobs, sinners? By accepting the jobs they are impoverishing another town after all.

The vagueness of these statements give away their real purpose. These aren’t really new sins but rather a public relations exercise for the Catholic Church. The sex scandals that pop up in the press every few years have taken their toll on the institution. This list is just a way for the church to try and generate some positive feelings about themselves. The first three aren’t really breaking new ground, but the last four are just pandering. It’s supposed to fool people into thinking the Catholic Church is fighting for the little guy. Thinking about this makes me even happier to be an atheist.

Quietly, Turkey has sponsored a group of religious scholars who are working to reinterpret the tenets of Islam to make it more relevant to today’s world. I am simply amazed this has been going on. Here in the Western world we have this view of Islam as this harsh and unchanging religion. It would be stunning to hear someone in the Middle East propose this, let alone find out that it’s already being worked on.

These scholars are focused on the Hadith. This is the collection of sayings from Mohammed. They’re using critical reasoning and philosophic techniques long used by Christian scholars in their debates about the Bible. This process should weed out bogus hadiths that were added years, even centuries, after Mohammed died. Not only will they remove fake ones, but these scholars will also reinterpret the authentic hadiths. One example the BBC article cited was the hadith that forbade women from traveling alone for more than three days without their husband’s permission. As Prof. Mehmet Gormez explained, that prohibition wasn’t made out of some obscure religious command. It was done because in the 7th century it was quite dangerous for women to travel on their own. That logic no longer applies to today’s situation so these scholars will reinterpret it and include that historical relevance.

Unfortunately the BBC article did not explain when Turkey would make this work public but it is apparently expected to come out soon. I know I sound like I’m gushing with praise for it, but it’s only because I’m so shocked this project is actually going forward. It’s a fascinating attempt to meld an ancient religion with the different society we live in today. Turkey has been the vanguard for Muslims trying to live a modern lifestyle, so it’s natural that this project would begin there. It’s really quite heartening too because the media has recently been running some scare stories about Turkey’s AK Party trying to inch the government away from secularism. To see that instead this government has been working on melding religion with the freedoms we expect today, well…it just gives me hope. Let me get overly optimistic here and say perhaps this concept can be exported to the less radical Islamic countries like Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, etc. Yeah the Islamic world still has political problems that need to be tackled, but with Turkey’s project to reform the Hadith, perhaps the recent wave of religious tension has crested.

I don’t understand anything about Hare Krishnas besides that they’re very weird. They wear orange robes, shave their heads and Airplane! taught me they hand out flowers in airports, although I have never seen this firsthand.

The group is having a bit of schism recently with the national Hare Krishna organization suing the local New York branch. The New Yorkers have been running a bed & breakfast out of their East Village temple, collecting over $300,000 last year entirely tax free. The national organization is angry their religious tax exempt status is being jeopardized by this side business.

This got me thinking though, why should religion be tax exempt at all? I don’t know of any other industry that enjoys such an advantage at government expense. Even businesses the government is trying to encourage receive tax credits at best, but no one else gets a free ride.

Before you object that religion isn’t a business, I’m going to tell you that you’re wrong. Religion is selling solace. Churches provide their members with the comfort of an ideology to follow, an instant community to plug in to and assistance during times of need. All this for paying a tithe. It’s like you’re buying psychology and insurance but no one would seriously suggest not taxing those industries.

‘Oh but tithing is just a donation not a fee. Your church won’t cut you off if you don’t contribute unlike a psychologist or insurance company.’ Well, tithing was a fee God charged everyone to support the priesthood in the Old Testament. Christian denominations disagree on whether that law is still required now, but even without the mandatory ten percent you’re still expected to be charitable. Either way I understand the other point, but I don’t quite agree with it. It’s doubtful a church would formally cast out a member who didn’t pay their tithing but I would bet this member would see degradation in service. Everyone shares in the same sermon, but when it comes to one on one counseling, I bet the pastor/priest/whatever phones it in. They may even try to discuss your poor tithing with you. Oh and good luck mobilizing church members to help you if they find out you’re cheaping out. Churches aren’t precise when it comes to an exchange of tithing for services, but that doesn’t mean the exchange doesn’t exist.

Maybe you can justify the tax exemption if you argue churches are non-profit charitable organizations. I won’t automatically agree with that, but it’s worth further discussion. However if that is going to be the case, churches should have to prove a minimum level of charity to qualify for the exemption.

Growing up in New York I saw plenty of Jews for Jesus (J4J) handing out leaflets and broshures in the subway, but for many years I had no idea what the deal was with those guys. Even now I have only the barest idea of what’s going on. Now I think J4J is just a segment within some Baptist sect. Being ex-Jews they try to bring other Jews into their group. I think that’s what’s going on anyway.

What I was oblivious to, until recently, was the anger these people incite in the wider Jewish community. J4J has really riled some people up over their new subway posters. The picture on the NY Post’s website makes the posters look pretty harmless. It’s just a long corridor of these bright colored posters repeating. It might even look pretty. Yet some Jewish groups are outraged.

“If even one member of the Jewish community is enticed by these ads, that would be tragic,” says Michael Miller, VP of the Jewish Community Relations Council.

I have to ask why. Why is it wrong for a religion to try to convert Jews? I thought Jews were as fair game as anyone. A few weeks ago as I was taking a walk around my block I saw two Mormon missionaries talking to an Indian woman. Her being Indian the odds are good she was Hindu, or at least Muslim. Was that wrong of them? Are Christians only supposed to preach to other Christians, or is all preaching bad?

I imagine any retort would claim it’s wrong for a group to focus solely on Jews. I don’t really see why that’s so wrong as long as J4J is not coersing any Jews to join them. People still have their own free will. At worst they’re an annoyance that you say “no, go away” to. Besides, I highly doubt they would turn away any non-Jew who expressed an interest in their religion. J4J is just a gimmick to try and put Jews at ease with talking about Christianity. Getting converted Jews to concentrate on regular Jews makes some sense. These people were once practicing Jews, so they’re already going to be familiar with the questions and concerns other Jews have. It’s amusing a group that was designed to put Jews at ease is getting so many worked up.