I suppose that I should admit right up front that this post will violate my usual practice of not dealing with political and (to a lesser extent) religious topics. I am well aware of the fact that such topics tend to be “sensitive,” but that really shouldn’t mean that they are never broached. It DOES mean that one should be careful not to let one’s point of view extend to the level of refusing to accept that others have a right to disagree. AND, THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER. (Note: I am VERY fond of the quote from Stephen Hopkins [the character] from the musical, 1776, which says: “Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything.”[emphasis added]) I think it’s important to note this quote refers to talking about controversial ideas; not, necessarily, acting on them. Discussion can, of course, lead to action, but the whole idea of debate is to discuss the various sides of a question, which does not, necessarily, mean that one supports taking action on behalf of any, specific point of view.
Having said that; I see that the Christian holiday of Easter will soon be upon us, as will Passover for Jews, along with Ostara for some pagan groups, and various, other Spring Celebrations. That’s enough to get me to thinking about what many people would call “religious matters,” especially since we ARE in an election season and “Super Tuesday” will be upon us shortly. I was always taught that religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed. To my way of thinking, that combination tends to lead to intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and bad law which I don’t think of as either “American,” or “Christian” values, but perhaps I should explain….
I think my major challenge in contemplating these sorts of things is that I am not easily satisfied with what I see as overly simplistic solutions. If there IS a god, or gods, I have yet to encounter satisfactory evidence of its (their) existence to the point where I am willing to support any specific god(s), religion, sect, denomination, etc. That’s NOT to say that I am convinced that ANY of those which I have encountered COULDN’T be the “one, true, absolute TRUTH,” just that I have not, personally, been convinced of that.
Some of my concern about such matters has been precipitated by the intrusion of various notions of religion into our daily lives and, certainly, into our politics. I was raised to believe that people were entitled to believe pretty much whatever they wanted to and to practice whatever religion they desired, as long as they left me (and others) alone to believe whatever I (they) wished and that I left THEM alone to their beliefs. I also believe that was the way many of our nation’s “Founding Fathers” wanted it to be. (See below):
Having said that; I see that the Christian holiday of Easter will soon be upon us, as will Passover for Jews, along with Ostara for some pagan groups, and various, other Spring Celebrations. That’s enough to get me to thinking about what many people would call “religious matters,” especially since we ARE in an election season and “Super Tuesday” will be upon us shortly. I was always taught that religion and politics shouldn’t be mixed. To my way of thinking, that combination tends to lead to intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and bad law which I don’t think of as either “American,” or “Christian” values, but perhaps I should explain….
I think my major challenge in contemplating these sorts of things is that I am not easily satisfied with what I see as overly simplistic solutions. If there IS a god, or gods, I have yet to encounter satisfactory evidence of its (their) existence to the point where I am willing to support any specific god(s), religion, sect, denomination, etc. That’s NOT to say that I am convinced that ANY of those which I have encountered COULDN’T be the “one, true, absolute TRUTH,” just that I have not, personally, been convinced of that.
Some of my concern about such matters has been precipitated by the intrusion of various notions of religion into our daily lives and, certainly, into our politics. I was raised to believe that people were entitled to believe pretty much whatever they wanted to and to practice whatever religion they desired, as long as they left me (and others) alone to believe whatever I (they) wished and that I left THEM alone to their beliefs. I also believe that was the way many of our nation’s “Founding Fathers” wanted it to be. (See below):
Yes, I got these pics from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, but I won’t hold that against them. And I don’t think that the FFRF has a claim to any greater truth than those who might disagree with them. I would suggest, however, that the quotes they have chosen to cite here do seem to represent the notion that religion (any religion) was not seen, at least by some of our founders, as providing a desirable basis on which to form a government. Of course, that doesn’t say that they saw religion (or, at least religious freedom) as a “bad” thing.
I suppose that MY real position (as well as the driving force behind this post) is that it seems that more and more these days we are seeing individual (or group) religious beliefs intruding into what are, in fact, political (governmental) positions. In some cases such ideas are even being used as the basis of laws. I don’t think that’s what the founders had in mind. I suppose that the simplest way of capsulizing my opinion is with a quote from former President JFK.
I suppose that MY real position (as well as the driving force behind this post) is that it seems that more and more these days we are seeing individual (or group) religious beliefs intruding into what are, in fact, political (governmental) positions. In some cases such ideas are even being used as the basis of laws. I don’t think that’s what the founders had in mind. I suppose that the simplest way of capsulizing my opinion is with a quote from former President JFK.
I also remember that Kennedy was attacked “back in the day,” because he was a practicing Roman Catholic, so he was going to “let the Pope run our country!” Well, it really didn’t work out that way. In any case, one might be able to understand that I have “issues” with those of our political figures who wish to justify their political actions on the basis of what they claim are “the correct,” or at least “broadly held” religious beliefs. Actually, I probably should admit that many of the ideas I question ARE “broadly held” religious beliefs, but that doesn’t make them good law; or good politics.
For example, in the recent past, in the state where I currently reside, there has been considerable controversy over the Death Penalty for certain serious crimes. Now, it is obviously true that the Ten Commandments (NOTE: These come from ONE broad religious tradition.) says “Thou shalt not kill,” or something which often is translated to mean that. That being the case, how do the followers of this tradition justify killing someone who has, for example, killed someone else? Do the two “bad things” sort of cancel each other out? Are they saying that, our legal system should be based on the idea that society is justified in doing to you whatever you did to me and that principle should define justice? Personally, I have some reservations about that.
What about what we call “self-defense?” Okay, in this case, I HAVE, in fact, injured someone. Does the fact that “he shot (or violently attacked) first” make it okay for me to respond with violence? Is that reasonable, logical, and in agreement with the Ten Commandments? Or, must I stand by helplessly while someone kills, maims, or otherwise threatens my life, or that of my spouse or children because my taking action might end up in my injuring the “attacking” individual? Is THAT murder? What about if my wife desires (No, Bonnie has NOT done this!) to have an abortion because our “unborn child” is (according to the best medical opinion available) going to cause her to die and/or has little to no chance of survival in any case? Are we saying that this “unborn child” is more important than that “child” having a living mother for whatever time it MIGHT survive?
Why do many folks suggest that female contraception is “against the will of God,” but drugs like Viagra, widely promoted as a cure for “erectile dysfunction” so that men can have more sex (which is, of course, solely permissible to achieve God’s desire for humans to “multiply”) aren’t even discussed as controversial. Does this means that men get to influence religio-medical decisions regarding women, but related decisions for MEN, aren’t even worthy of discussion, except for purpose of advertising to make drug companies money? Do such ads not at least appear to be promoting the idea that MEN should have a lot of sex (whether it’s to “multiply,” or not)? And exactly where does the (it MUST be female, of course) partner fit into this discussion?
Why is being against abortion “Pro-Life,” but favoring the right of allowing people to make such decisions for themselves “Anti-Life?” (I confess that I’m quite sure that the reason for that is also ADVERTISING! After all, “Pro-Choice” sounds reasonable, plausible and inoffensive, which the “Anti-Choice” folks don’t want to accept.) [NOTE: I have NEVER heard ANYONE suggest that abortion is desirable, or should be undertaken lightly.] THAT’s why the “Pro-Life” folks refuse to say “Pro-Choice,” while they work to force THEIR CHOICE on everyone else.
The same basic notion is involved as when folks want to ban books “of a certain sort,” like the dictionary, and some novels, histories, etc. because they contain ideas about “sexual matters” or because they were written when “certain words” were commonly accepted even in “polite” society. I would suggest that banning books because they make us “uncomfortable” today is often denying the facts of our, common history or of basic knowledge. Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc. HAVE existed in the past (and are still, at least somewhat, present today). And the notion that we have to “protect our children” from such ideas is stupid, because either they already know about such things, or they will have their curiosity aroused to find out about them. If we won’t even discuss such ideas, they will ALWAYS be present to create discord and conflict.
What about when folks wish to forbid scientifically proven practices, like using vaccines and/or masking during public health emergencies, because “some people” said they were bad on “social media,” or they are inconvenient. I would suggest that you don’t (and shouldn’t) have the right to censor scientific and/or historical facts to suit YOUR idea of desirability! Nor should you be able to endanger me, or my family, by refusing to allow us access to scientifically proven public health practices because you choose to reject the scientific evidence of their effectiveness.
If, as it has been said, “Slaves actually acquired useful skills for when they were freed,” why didn’t they immediately become “productive members of the working class” when they were emancipated? Might it be because, in fact, most of them were NOT ALLOWED to learn much in the way of actual “useful” skills, except for those needed by illiterate farm hands, so that they had to work at subsistence level jobs to survive? That seems quite likely to me.
I don’t suggest that these are comfortable questions, but I also don’t see why, on the basis of their personal, and/or religious beliefs, various third parties should have the right to demand that THEIR religious practices and beliefs should be politically required of everyone else. It seems to me that these sorts of questions (and the lengths to which some figures will go to to make sure that THEIR opinions are the only acceptable ones) become even more outrageous (and potentially damaging) when it comes to dealing with the LGBTQ+ community.
Now let me be perfectly frank about this: I have always considered myself to be “straight.” I have never been tempted sexually by another male, and I have never desired to be. In the same fashion, I took my “marriage vows” of fidelity to my wife seriously, and while I won’t claim that I’ve never been tempted (or at least wondered), in fact I’ve never been “unfaithful” to my wife, except, perhaps like Jimmy Carter, who once said: “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes that I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it.”
Jimmy, of course, has the advantage in that he is a firm believer in his religion. As one with questions about such things (I guess that MY baptism didn’t really take!), I don’t have that comfort. However, I also don’t consider myself better than those who behave differently from how I do, unless they violate reasonable, rational laws. Mostly, I just don’t think about it. MY concerns are MINE, theirs are THEIRS.
That being said, when it comes to LGBTQ+ questions, I figure that, generally speaking, those aren’t my issues to decide. I’ve spent much of my life around “non-straight” folks, at least some of the time. One simply can’t work for as long as I did in the theatre, or in film, at any level without contact with “non-straight” folks. That’s a simple fact of life and, I would hasten to point out that I don’t believe that anyone in “the business” really cares all that much if a director, designer or technician is “straight,” or not, as long as they do their job well. The same is, I believe, true for actors. If a lesbian can move an audience emotionally when playing a moving, romantic, heterosexual scene with a queer actor, NOBODY CARES! After all, acting IS “make believe.” IT’S NOT REAL! That’s not to suggest that such situations are sought out, but if it “works,” sells tickets, puts “butts in seats,” who cares what the actors do on their own time? As the saying goes, “Not my problem!” I believe that much the same is true, or should be, in real life. What people do on their own time is their concern, not mine. As long as they don’t force themselves on me, or others, I think they should be left alone.
Ah, but then someone will say, “What about those ‘Trans’ kids who are being forced to undergo various sorts of medical ‘treatments’ because someone is ‘grooming’ them to change their sex from what ‘God intended’?” (Note that it’s virtually always implied that someone is forcing such a decision on the “child,” it’s never even suggested that the child might have expressed any sort of desire, or might have anything resembling a say in such a matter.) I confess that I’ve never heard of a situation where a parent, or a legitimate, licensed, medically-trained person encouraged someone to undergo sexual transition because it was, simple, easy, and without challenges. I can’t conceive of the possibility of a sane person thinking that that might be the case, let alone suggesting it, but it seems to be frequently implied by political figures with little to no medical background. This is often summed up in the statement that “God doesn’t make mistakes!”
If THAT is the case, then, if a woman dies because of complications in pregnancy and/or childbirth, God clearly intended that to happen. If a fetus dies, the same logic would suggest that God intended that, too. So, by this logic, one cannot only justify abolishing not only abortion and sexual transition under any circumstance, but one should also abolish ALL medical practices, perhaps even ALL LAWS, since they MUST be contrary to God’s intention. Therefore, God must also have provided us with drugs (like Viagra and ALL other medicines), medical information, and trained practitioners, etc., etc., for the purpose of confusing us and tempting us to defy His plan! Does THAT make sense as the actions of what is often proclaimed as a “loving” God?
There are even some who suggest that the “simple” way to stop abortion is to define “Human Life” (therefore, citizenship) as beginning at conception, making abortion, murder. Since it is, as far as I know, impossible to establish the precise moment that conception occurs, it seems to me that that moment can’t be legally established. That would suggest that, until a fetus has been born (It IS possible to establish a time for that!) a fetus can’t possibly fit into any reasonable, legal, definition of “personhood.” To rule otherwise would make it necessary to rewrite every law which contains ANY reference to age, with what would be an imprecise, indefinite, and indeterminate reference. Dealing with THAT is a problem I would not wish to have to face.
I am frequently amused/frustrated by the fact that the even some “good, religious leaders” insist that anyone even suggesting that abortion should be a personal decision made by a woman and her family, doctors, etc. is “against Life,” yet many of them support the death penalty and, certainly have NO problem supporting the most powerful military force in history. (Remember, WE dropped the atomic bomb, nobody else has, at least yet. Yes, we believe that it probably saved American lives in the long run [and I suspect that it did], but our hands aren’t “washed clean as snow.”) Our military exists, primarily, to accomplish the political ends of our nation’s leadership through at least the threat of FORCE, and I’m glad it does, but that doesn’t make military action any less violent, or less threatening. As Edith Ann would say; “and that’s the truth. [blows a raspberry ]”
Personally, I’m strongly in favor of doing what at least some of our founders said and keeping religion OUT of government. Yes, religion can be ONE way to establish social values, etc., but LAW is how GOVERNMENT is supposed to accomplish that end. Relying on religion to do it for us is not only cheating, it leads to the hypocrisy which is, all too often, at the center of our politics. I think that we should take some advice from Snoopy, who I believe, had it quite right in the Peanuts strip below:
For example, in the recent past, in the state where I currently reside, there has been considerable controversy over the Death Penalty for certain serious crimes. Now, it is obviously true that the Ten Commandments (NOTE: These come from ONE broad religious tradition.) says “Thou shalt not kill,” or something which often is translated to mean that. That being the case, how do the followers of this tradition justify killing someone who has, for example, killed someone else? Do the two “bad things” sort of cancel each other out? Are they saying that, our legal system should be based on the idea that society is justified in doing to you whatever you did to me and that principle should define justice? Personally, I have some reservations about that.
What about what we call “self-defense?” Okay, in this case, I HAVE, in fact, injured someone. Does the fact that “he shot (or violently attacked) first” make it okay for me to respond with violence? Is that reasonable, logical, and in agreement with the Ten Commandments? Or, must I stand by helplessly while someone kills, maims, or otherwise threatens my life, or that of my spouse or children because my taking action might end up in my injuring the “attacking” individual? Is THAT murder? What about if my wife desires (No, Bonnie has NOT done this!) to have an abortion because our “unborn child” is (according to the best medical opinion available) going to cause her to die and/or has little to no chance of survival in any case? Are we saying that this “unborn child” is more important than that “child” having a living mother for whatever time it MIGHT survive?
Why do many folks suggest that female contraception is “against the will of God,” but drugs like Viagra, widely promoted as a cure for “erectile dysfunction” so that men can have more sex (which is, of course, solely permissible to achieve God’s desire for humans to “multiply”) aren’t even discussed as controversial. Does this means that men get to influence religio-medical decisions regarding women, but related decisions for MEN, aren’t even worthy of discussion, except for purpose of advertising to make drug companies money? Do such ads not at least appear to be promoting the idea that MEN should have a lot of sex (whether it’s to “multiply,” or not)? And exactly where does the (it MUST be female, of course) partner fit into this discussion?
Why is being against abortion “Pro-Life,” but favoring the right of allowing people to make such decisions for themselves “Anti-Life?” (I confess that I’m quite sure that the reason for that is also ADVERTISING! After all, “Pro-Choice” sounds reasonable, plausible and inoffensive, which the “Anti-Choice” folks don’t want to accept.) [NOTE: I have NEVER heard ANYONE suggest that abortion is desirable, or should be undertaken lightly.] THAT’s why the “Pro-Life” folks refuse to say “Pro-Choice,” while they work to force THEIR CHOICE on everyone else.
The same basic notion is involved as when folks want to ban books “of a certain sort,” like the dictionary, and some novels, histories, etc. because they contain ideas about “sexual matters” or because they were written when “certain words” were commonly accepted even in “polite” society. I would suggest that banning books because they make us “uncomfortable” today is often denying the facts of our, common history or of basic knowledge. Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc. HAVE existed in the past (and are still, at least somewhat, present today). And the notion that we have to “protect our children” from such ideas is stupid, because either they already know about such things, or they will have their curiosity aroused to find out about them. If we won’t even discuss such ideas, they will ALWAYS be present to create discord and conflict.
What about when folks wish to forbid scientifically proven practices, like using vaccines and/or masking during public health emergencies, because “some people” said they were bad on “social media,” or they are inconvenient. I would suggest that you don’t (and shouldn’t) have the right to censor scientific and/or historical facts to suit YOUR idea of desirability! Nor should you be able to endanger me, or my family, by refusing to allow us access to scientifically proven public health practices because you choose to reject the scientific evidence of their effectiveness.
If, as it has been said, “Slaves actually acquired useful skills for when they were freed,” why didn’t they immediately become “productive members of the working class” when they were emancipated? Might it be because, in fact, most of them were NOT ALLOWED to learn much in the way of actual “useful” skills, except for those needed by illiterate farm hands, so that they had to work at subsistence level jobs to survive? That seems quite likely to me.
I don’t suggest that these are comfortable questions, but I also don’t see why, on the basis of their personal, and/or religious beliefs, various third parties should have the right to demand that THEIR religious practices and beliefs should be politically required of everyone else. It seems to me that these sorts of questions (and the lengths to which some figures will go to to make sure that THEIR opinions are the only acceptable ones) become even more outrageous (and potentially damaging) when it comes to dealing with the LGBTQ+ community.
Now let me be perfectly frank about this: I have always considered myself to be “straight.” I have never been tempted sexually by another male, and I have never desired to be. In the same fashion, I took my “marriage vows” of fidelity to my wife seriously, and while I won’t claim that I’ve never been tempted (or at least wondered), in fact I’ve never been “unfaithful” to my wife, except, perhaps like Jimmy Carter, who once said: “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes that I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it.”
Jimmy, of course, has the advantage in that he is a firm believer in his religion. As one with questions about such things (I guess that MY baptism didn’t really take!), I don’t have that comfort. However, I also don’t consider myself better than those who behave differently from how I do, unless they violate reasonable, rational laws. Mostly, I just don’t think about it. MY concerns are MINE, theirs are THEIRS.
That being said, when it comes to LGBTQ+ questions, I figure that, generally speaking, those aren’t my issues to decide. I’ve spent much of my life around “non-straight” folks, at least some of the time. One simply can’t work for as long as I did in the theatre, or in film, at any level without contact with “non-straight” folks. That’s a simple fact of life and, I would hasten to point out that I don’t believe that anyone in “the business” really cares all that much if a director, designer or technician is “straight,” or not, as long as they do their job well. The same is, I believe, true for actors. If a lesbian can move an audience emotionally when playing a moving, romantic, heterosexual scene with a queer actor, NOBODY CARES! After all, acting IS “make believe.” IT’S NOT REAL! That’s not to suggest that such situations are sought out, but if it “works,” sells tickets, puts “butts in seats,” who cares what the actors do on their own time? As the saying goes, “Not my problem!” I believe that much the same is true, or should be, in real life. What people do on their own time is their concern, not mine. As long as they don’t force themselves on me, or others, I think they should be left alone.
Ah, but then someone will say, “What about those ‘Trans’ kids who are being forced to undergo various sorts of medical ‘treatments’ because someone is ‘grooming’ them to change their sex from what ‘God intended’?” (Note that it’s virtually always implied that someone is forcing such a decision on the “child,” it’s never even suggested that the child might have expressed any sort of desire, or might have anything resembling a say in such a matter.) I confess that I’ve never heard of a situation where a parent, or a legitimate, licensed, medically-trained person encouraged someone to undergo sexual transition because it was, simple, easy, and without challenges. I can’t conceive of the possibility of a sane person thinking that that might be the case, let alone suggesting it, but it seems to be frequently implied by political figures with little to no medical background. This is often summed up in the statement that “God doesn’t make mistakes!”
If THAT is the case, then, if a woman dies because of complications in pregnancy and/or childbirth, God clearly intended that to happen. If a fetus dies, the same logic would suggest that God intended that, too. So, by this logic, one cannot only justify abolishing not only abortion and sexual transition under any circumstance, but one should also abolish ALL medical practices, perhaps even ALL LAWS, since they MUST be contrary to God’s intention. Therefore, God must also have provided us with drugs (like Viagra and ALL other medicines), medical information, and trained practitioners, etc., etc., for the purpose of confusing us and tempting us to defy His plan! Does THAT make sense as the actions of what is often proclaimed as a “loving” God?
There are even some who suggest that the “simple” way to stop abortion is to define “Human Life” (therefore, citizenship) as beginning at conception, making abortion, murder. Since it is, as far as I know, impossible to establish the precise moment that conception occurs, it seems to me that that moment can’t be legally established. That would suggest that, until a fetus has been born (It IS possible to establish a time for that!) a fetus can’t possibly fit into any reasonable, legal, definition of “personhood.” To rule otherwise would make it necessary to rewrite every law which contains ANY reference to age, with what would be an imprecise, indefinite, and indeterminate reference. Dealing with THAT is a problem I would not wish to have to face.
I am frequently amused/frustrated by the fact that the even some “good, religious leaders” insist that anyone even suggesting that abortion should be a personal decision made by a woman and her family, doctors, etc. is “against Life,” yet many of them support the death penalty and, certainly have NO problem supporting the most powerful military force in history. (Remember, WE dropped the atomic bomb, nobody else has, at least yet. Yes, we believe that it probably saved American lives in the long run [and I suspect that it did], but our hands aren’t “washed clean as snow.”) Our military exists, primarily, to accomplish the political ends of our nation’s leadership through at least the threat of FORCE, and I’m glad it does, but that doesn’t make military action any less violent, or less threatening. As Edith Ann would say; “and that’s the truth. [blows a raspberry ]”
Personally, I’m strongly in favor of doing what at least some of our founders said and keeping religion OUT of government. Yes, religion can be ONE way to establish social values, etc., but LAW is how GOVERNMENT is supposed to accomplish that end. Relying on religion to do it for us is not only cheating, it leads to the hypocrisy which is, all too often, at the center of our politics. I think that we should take some advice from Snoopy, who I believe, had it quite right in the Peanuts strip below:
I am particularly fond of the fact that Snoopy doesn’t state that anyone is wrong (which has been frequently at least implied by many of our politico-religious “leaders”). He just suggests that it’s worth considering that any of us MIGHT be. I don’t really wish to shatter anyone’s belief system, but I’m willing to admit that I (not being a Deity) do NOT have all the answers, and I have grave doubts that any of you do, either.
In this year of significant political action, these questions might well be worth some thought and discussion. After all, all that’s at stake is the future of our nation, and, perhaps, the world….
I’ll be back, I hope, in a couple of weeks
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
In this year of significant political action, these questions might well be worth some thought and discussion. After all, all that’s at stake is the future of our nation, and, perhaps, the world….
I’ll be back, I hope, in a couple of weeks
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed