DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.



A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.



I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.



One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.



Yes, the military has their own archdiocese.



In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services.

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.



The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).



So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.



Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.



It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.

[More below the break]



Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....



The response of Broglio?  It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA.  It's a federal law.  How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?



And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency.  Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.



Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI).  Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.



Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?



As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.



I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples."  I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.



However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.

Gay Marriage: So What?

Gay marriage was deemed legal in New York State over the past weekend....

As someone who's spent a lot of time on this blog doing Catholicism for dummies, I guess I would be expected to comment on this sort of thing.

To which one part of my says ... "So what?"  My personal politics says who cares. I don't care what anyone else does as long as they don't harm anyone else. I'm a little libertarian that way.  In fact, I had proposed a few times that we just make all "marriages" properly labeled.  Atheists and gays can have civil unions (because, really, marriage should be something religious). and anyone who can get married in a church can get married in any church that will have them. The End.

[More below the break]

Index: Atheists, Lent, and Evil Religions

Throughout Easter and a Lent, I did a lot of what my friend Jason called "High Intellectual" articles.


I'm never making that mistake ever again.

However, since it did have some interesting fan support.... if "fans" could be people screaming for your blood ... I figured I'd put it into a nice, compact little section on the blog. Think of it as a season in review that, with luck, I'll never inflict on anyone ever again.

The Snarky Theology series. My way of translating dogmatic theology into something that human beings can understand.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals. Looking at the theology of Swallow the leader. Eating your deity.
Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent. Some fun facts about Lent that turned into a minor war.

The Flame war is postponed:While I was busy having a flame war with an idiot on the blog, someone did something stupid online. I fought back in the name of all sane people everywhere.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants. Evolution, what is it good for? My answer: who cares?

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays Pretty much what it says.

GOD H8TS JAPAN; Twitting with Phelps & Co.  Hint, it was published on 4-1-11

Snarky Theology 5: The Passion, Jews, and Good Friday. 

Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN





The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"-- I had two weeks off from Snarky theology for two virtual book tours. One was a bit of Sherlock Holmes with Murder in the Vatican, and some Catholic science fiction from Karina Fabian's Infinite Space, Infinite God II

Murder in the Vatican Author Margaret Ann Lewis.

Guest blog (on writing historical figures in fiction) and Interview (on writing a book on Sherlock Holmes and Pope Leo XIII), and a Review of Murder in the Vatican, which can be found at Amazon.com

I did the same for Karina Fabian.

The Guest blog: where she talks about writing religion and science fiction

The interview, where I unleash my inner nerdom ...

And a review.

I think that was the most fun I had had that Lent. They were both a joy and a pleasure to have.

Evil Religions

And, at the end of may, when the Easter season was almost over, I did a series I call, simply "Evil Religion." The title, for the record, was Ironic. It wound up covering a lot of atheist theology. Not sure why. Maybe because the Dawkins-Hitchens crowd tend to whine alot.

I had a Preface to explain the premise.

One called simply "Allahu Akbar" Guess what that's about.

Jesus Freaks scare me

Baby-raping Catholic priests

The Ten commandments of Atheism, if I wrote them

Evil Religion: Atheism

Science and Religion: Stupid Catholics.

Anti-theist complaints: Literal interpretations. I asked my friend Matt what he thought was wrong with religion. I answered him.  This was pretty much a series all it's own from here on in.

Mormons and Gays.

Indoctrination of Children. Because religious education is brain washing, don't you know?

Doctrine Crapshoot. Because everything is just pick and choose, right?

Religious Superiority complexes: Because religion is the source of egomania, after all.

Random Beliefs. Because it's all so random, you know?

Conform, or else.... because no one ever goes against a secular norm.

Evil Atheist / Religion, Conclusion.  This is where I tie it all together.

Can you understand why this blog is now all nerd-dom all the time?  This was a draining, wrenching experience. One that I never want to relive. 

Anti-theist complaints: Mormons, gays

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, anti-theist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.



I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises



This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.



My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.



If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)



Anyway, onto the complaint ....

-Mormon (and other sects) mistreatment of homosexuals

Mormons, I hate these guys … I've been to Utah, and the Stepford Wives effect is creey as all hell.

However, I think that religion has nothing to do with the overall question...



Bear with me.



I'm going to define "mistreatment" rather loosely. I've heard mistreatment as being everything from stoning to simply not being married in a Catholic church. I'm going to go with the lightest definition of mistreatment, where you can define it as simply being considered "other."



Let's start by removing religion from the equation, shall we?







According to Dr. Konrad Tuchserer of St. John's University, African tribesman think that homosexuality is a creation of Western Culture; they think it's unnatural, and they seem to be more interested in tribalism over religion.



In China, gays “do not exist.” No one has said that, but there is no active gay subculture that will pop its head out into the light. Why? Because it's China. Atheist, pseudo-fascist, China.... so, blaming religion doesn't work well there.



And "mistreatment" … you mean like how psychology, the most atheist profession on record, had homosexuality down as a disease until they voted out of the DSM in the 1970s? Is that how you want to talk about mistreatment?



Aside from Greece, which had pederasty, I don't know of any culture that ever encouraged homosexuality.



Take out religion, it just becomes a matter of the local community forming a lynch mob against “the deviant,” something they've done since, oh, Socrates? His crime was more a matter of showing people how stupid they were, so let's have him swing from the nearest yardarm .... okay, hemlock. Be picky....



Modern mistreatment of gays is usually in backwaters, fueled by cultural stupidity .... and substance abuse. Please note that the most publicized incident of a "hate crime" against homosexuals in the last few years was an incident in Texas in the late 1990s.  It was not religious-based, but the result of two meth-heads on a week-long rampage.



I'd love for someone to point out a point in time (any point, any time, before the rise of Greenwich Village) where homosexuality was generally accepted as a non-deviant subculture. I've already pointed out Greece. The Atheist governments of China and the Soviet Union weren't fans of anything non-standard, and the Atheist government of the 1792 French republic didn't seem to like anyone, really .... I would like to say that the British have been accepting of homosexuality, but then there was Oscar Wilde. Their attitude on the subject confuses me.



The short version: Anthropologists have pointed out that "the other" is traditionally defined by their appearance, or by their behavior. 

Mr Phelps, You Are Disavowed…

[This blog is rated PG, for mild intemperate language.]

I do not feel the need to disavow every single stupid thing a Christian group has ever done. For one thing, I'm Catholic, so most Christian sects, denominations, etc, have already disavowed me. So when other folks in other Christian groups do something stupid, I generally don't care.

Like, for example, when a creationist museum that has what appears to be a Garden of Eden setting … with a Velociraptor off to the side.

Thankfully, I can usually say, “Yeah, that's stupid,” and move on. Because it is stupid: even ignoring that human beings and dinosaurs were separated by about a few BILLION years of development, you'd think that the museum designer would have picked a dinosaur that was more friendly in appearance, and what wasn't the primary adversary of one of the top grossing films of all time.

So, with idiocies like that, I don't care. It's not my church, not my problem.

And then there's Fred Phelps.... who may or may not have appeared in one of our stories.

Mr. Phelps, who bears no relationship to Jim Phelps of the Mission: Impossible TV series, is not unknown to constant readers of this blog, or fellow writer/blogger Rebekah of Masks. He is a failed Kansas Democratic Party nominee. He is a failed lawyer (disbarred in 1977).  He is 81 years old, and has been banned from enterting the United Kingdom, and sent a letter to Saddam Hussein, praising him for his religious tolerance.  And he is an all around failed human being.

Most recently, Phelps runs a marginal little Baptist church in the back end of Westboro, Kansas. They run websites called “God Hates the World,” and even “God hates Sweden.”

Obviously, this guy has too much time on his hands if he could work himself into a lather about Sweden.

Phelps and company host a lot of protests. His most recent protest was at … the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards.

Constant readers know that I am no fan of politics, politicians, or even people connected with them. I have no particular affection or disdain for the late Mrs. John Edwards. When her husband had illicit offspring, she attacked anyone and everyone who discussed it, even though it was later revealed she knew all about it, even as she called everyone else a liar. While this does not put her into my nominee for sainthood, the woman's dead, get over it.

However, reasons for Mr. Phelps protesting her funeral are … odd. Part of his stated reasons for the protest include: “Elizabeth Edwards & her faithless husband, John, lightly esteemed what they had. They coveted things that were not theirs – and presumptuously thought they could control God.”

Um, what? I can tell more lawyer jokes that start with “John Edwards” than I know what to do with, but, seriously?  What drugs are you on, sir?

While I would usually just paint Mr. Phelps with the stupid brush, and say “this is not the Christian you're looking for, move along,” I have had an atheist friend of mine use Phelps as an example of why all religion is for weak-minded fools bewitched by old religious mind tricks (Yes, I put more than one Star Wars reference into an overwritten sentence. I'm a nerd).  So, Mr. Phelps has earned some special attention.   And it's not the first time on this blog (see Item 9)

Why does he deserve it? Because Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. He actually belongs to no organized religion that I have ever heard of. After all, he wants to spread “God's hate.” While God is somewhat cranky in the Torah, it's mostly a matter of “Screw With My People, I Will End You.” Hate is never stressed as a key component of any modern faith I know of; the others were wiped out centuries ago.

However, Mr. Phelps does remind me of something else. Looking over his history, he does nothing but organize protests. Protests at military funerals, random high schools, celebrity deaths, the San Francisco office of Twitter … the list goes on. And on. His band of bozos spend their time proclaiming that God hates gays. And that God Hates Jews. And God Hates Catholics. And God Hates the military. And God Hates…

Well, “God hates” everyone who isn't Mr. Phelps and his little band of twits.

“God” even “hates” comic book readers. Phelps and his band of fruit loops protested San Diego's Comic Con because “comic books encourage idolatry.” 


Riiiiiight.

I suspect that if there's a headline media story, Phelps will chase it, and park his people in front of it, lodging a protest, because God suddenly “hates” everyone involved. But only after it becomes front page news.  

Obviously, if you take any attention away from Mr. Phelps, God hates you.

When you consider that a Christian is defined as someone who follows the principles of Jesus Christ, Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. At no point did Christ mention anything about “God hates [this large body of people].” In fact, He generally preferred using examples of social outcasts who acted as better models of proper behavior than the high priests. There's a good reason why the Catholic Church has never declared that any individual person has gone to Hell—the Vatican condemns certain behaviors, not certain people.  It has never tried to take on the moral authority assumed by Dante.

So, let's see. Mr. Phelps has a small, insular body of people who clearly demonstrate an attitude that it is “us” versus “them.” In this case, “them” is “the world.” Also, Phelps is using the Gospel according to …. Phelps. Not to mention that Phelps is very interested in having the cameras on him at all times. It seems that the most dangerous place in America to be is between Freddy Phelps a microphone.

A narcissist with delusions of godhood … there's a term for that, isn't there?  Let me think about that a moment. Wait, it's coming to me … it's coming to me … Yes, I have it.

I think the term I want is “cult leader.”

Yes, “cult leader” and “attention-seeking media whore” sum him up rather neatly, I think.

And while there should be prayers (from actual people of faith) that Mr. Phelps become something other than what he is – maybe an atheist like Daniel Dennett -- I doubt it will happen. In fact, I await the day that Mr. Phelps and company break out a shipment of Kool-Aid, and give the rest of us some well-deserved peace and quiet.

On the other hand, Mr. Phelps is good for something. He has been put on the hit list of the Anti-Defamation League, gay rights groups, and Ann Coulter  …  I bet you'd never see those three all on the same side, did you?

Philosophy, Religion, and Sex.

Dear Pope Benedict, I've been a fan of your career since you worked under John Paul II.  The press hated you because you were hostile to them, and for that I applaud you.  But you have to stop having statements come out so close together, it messes up my schedule.



Last week, I explained why the Catholic Church wanted to hire exorcists.



This week, because no one in the Vatican can shut up, I'm going to try explaining something else that was recently in the news.



The New York Times recently reported that, "Yippie, the Pope is giving in and endorsing condom use."



The old gray hag of The New York Times has, once again, gotten it wrong.  One day, they may actually try to get a theologian to explain theology to them.  Unfortunately, given most theologians, that may not help much.



Let's start at the beginning: Why does the Catholic Church have an issue with condom use?  Or any contraceptives?



It basically involves philosophy ... bare with me a minute, I'll keep it short and comprehensible ... and what is the function of "a thing."  In the case of sex, the mechanism of sex is "insert tab A into slot B."  The "function" of sex is procreation, and a darn good time, if you're doing it correctly.



Contraceptions mess with the natural function of sex by removing elements that are inherent to the act -- procreation comes with sex.  The Vatican position is, that if you mess around with it and start taking out elements, then you are messing around with things that are not yours to mess with.



If you are pondering what the Catholic church's advice is on STD prevention when you have sex with your boy/girlfriend, the Church's position is that you should be having sex with your spouse, only with your spouse, have a nice day, thank you.  Under this rubrick, STDs are not a problem, since if you only ever insert one tab A into one tab B, STDs are not an issue; pregnancy remains in effect, but in the Catholic church, marriage is a contract to have sex, have kids, and spread the spawn around the globe, carrying the faith with it.



You are currently up on previously held positions.



The NY Times said, on November 21st .....

“Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS . . . .”

However, George Wiegel, papal biographer and general Vatican busybody, corrected the Times report.  You can find the full text online, but since that will take forever for you to read, I'm going to translate it for you, gentle reader, into something easily comprehensible.



The pope's actual statement, in context, was during an interview.  The pope mentioned how the Catholic Church runs more AIDS hospitals, and stresses "prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment."  IE: The pope pointed out that, unlike pontificating reporters, the Church actually does something,



The pope even stressed that "we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease."





The pope continued:

.... people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality .... the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Short version: sex is important, has an effect on a person, and is also for the purpose of expressing love.  Throw in a condom, and you just make it another way to drug yourself into a stupor.




The part where the NYTimes gets confused is probably in the following section:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

When asked if "the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"  Pope Benedict XVI answered that "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."



Short version: If it's someone infected with AIDS, yes, the Church would rather that they NOT KILL PEOPLE by infecting them further. 



Basically, it's like robbing a bank -- if you rob a bank, the Church would rather have someone use an empty gun; it'll lessen the risk of someone getting their head blown off.



So, despite news reports, the Catholic Church's position hasn't changed.



With luck, we can all move on to something important now.