Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Vatican attack on Spain’s gay marriage law – World – Times Online: “The Vatican denunciation was made by Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, in an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper. Asked about the Spanish Bill, he said:’We cannot impose the iniquitous on people. ‘On the contrary, precisely because they are iniquitous the Church makes an urgent call for freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose.
‘A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation. One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is law.’”

Cardinal Fang! Fetch… THE COMFY CHAIR!

Amongst our weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!

None of which will make any sense to you whatsoever if you’re not a Monty Python fan.

I won’t re-hash all of my views on homosexuality and the Roman Catholic church except to say that I think the church’s leaders are dramatizing the ancient fears of primitive people who didn’t know any better. When it comes to homosexuality, we know better now.

The Devil in Redmond

Microsoft Caves on Gay Rights, Pressured by Evangelical Minister, Microsoft Withdraws Support for Civil Rights Bill, by Sandeep Kaushik (04/21/05) “[Microsoft] quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch. The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company’s products if it did not change its stance on the legislation…”

Are people actually surprised by this?

Since when has Microsoft ever been known to be motivated by anything other than profit?

Shane’s Problem With Homosexuality

I received an interesting comment on my last blog entry and I’ve reproduced it here with my response. The comment writer’s words are in purple. My response is in black.

Anonymous said…
I just found your blog on a search…

Sorry, but that’s just an outright lie.

A smart guy such as yourself, one who knows “the reality of science” could have made his case a lot more persuasively by quoting at least one expert.

The DNA evidence has actually shown the very opposite is true, which is why the gay community, that was so hopeful when we all knew the human DNA was being mapped, are now deftly silent on the issue, because it proved CONCLUSIVELY that there IS NO SUCH SCIENTIFIC BASIS for being gay as you claim.

A study published in “Science” on July 16, 1993 found a 64 percent correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of markers on the “X” sex chromosome. They did not find a “gay gene”, but a linkage that indicated a 99 percent confidence level that “at least one subtype of male homosexual orientation is genetically influenced.” Since then there have been several other studies suggesting a genetic basis for homosexuality. If genetic makeup were the only determinant in human psychology, that alone would be pretty good evidence. Of course, DNA is only one of several factors influencing human sexuality. Hormone levels, brain physiology, psychological and environmental factors (including environmental factors present when the homosexual person was still in his mother’s womb) have all been shown to be relevant.

There’s plenty of scientific evidence that homosexuality is an unchosen variation of human sexuality and the world’s best experts have come to a consensus. According to the American Psychological Association, “most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” The American Psychiatric Association has concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Further, the official policy of the American Medical Association “opposes, the use of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

You may fool some people with your ridiculous assertion, probably even most, but people believing it, and it being true, are not the same. You also lose ALL credibility instantly with thinking people who know the reality of the science such as I.

Now whom am I going to believe? The experts — or some guy in New Zealand whose argument consists solely of “you’re lying!”

Hmm…..

I think I’ll go with the experts.

You may believe in being gay, that’s your choice, I call it immoral,

Aha. And here, finally, is the crux of your argument. You object on moral grounds. You’re certainly entitled, even if I think your personal moral code is pretty twisted — but it was disingenuous of you to dress up your moral/religious objection as a science-based argument.

just like telling lies, but then maybe you could just add this to your site:

Shane

Now you’re just babbling.

Thanks for you letter, though, Shane. Although I don’t particularly enjoy being called a liar, I do welcome the opportunity to examine my own opinions. Having done so, I’m more convinced than ever that homosexuality is a normal and unchosen variation of human sexuality and that the available scientific evidence supports this conclusion.

More Thoughts On The New Pope

Guardian of Church Orthodoxy (washingtonpost.com): “[Ratzinger] publicly cautioned Europe against admitting Turkey to the European Union and wrote a letter to bishops around the world justifying that stand on the grounds that the continent is essentially Christian in nature.”

This was a mistake on his part. While most of Europe may be populated by Christians, the European Union is not a religious organization. It’s a political organization and, as such, it’s critical that all Europeans, regardless of their religion, feel welcome.

[More from the Post's article] “The Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition [to gay marriage] clearly and publicly and to vote against it,” said the document issued by [Ratzinger's] office. “To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.”

Regular readers willl no doubt recall that I’m strongly in favor of gay people having the same legal rights available to straight people. I don’t believe homosexuality is a moral issue. I believe — and current scientific evidence supports this belief — that homosexuality is a normal and unchosen variation of human sexual identity.

There was a time, really not so long ago, when lots of people in the Catholic Church, including high-ranking clerics, believed that people of color were somehow “less human” than white people. They believed it was morally justifiable to withhold some basic rights from black and brown-skinned people because of their race. Even slavery might be morally justifiable! Happily, those days are pretty much past.

I think the situation with homosexuality is very similar in many ways. When people like Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) and the late John Paul II condemn homosexuality as immoral I think they’re basing that idea on ancient people’s fears. Before science helped us understand that homosexuality is normal, people feared it because it was different. Add to that a perhaps inborn distrust of sexuality that doesn’t lead to reproduction and you’ve got a potent force against acceptance of homosexuality.

Ultimately, though, more and more people are coming to understand that it’s not about SIN. It’s about biology.

I have faith that eventually the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church will also come to this realization.

Cardinal Ratzinger Named Pope

New Pope Benedict XVI Announced (washingtonpost.com)

It’s not too surprising, I guess. He was well know among the cardinals and is much like Pope John Paul II in terms of his approach. He’s getting on in years though — 78. I had hoped the cardinals would elect someone from a “developing” country, but… maybe next time. Ratzinger is a good choice following John Paul.

The new Pope Benedict XVI is a genius. He did amazing work on the new Catechism that came out about ten years ago. (It’s well worth picking up a copy of the English version. Fascinating stuff — and it answers pretty much every question you could possibly think of in very understandable language.)

Wow! It sure didn’t take long this time, did it?!

Update on Cohasset Falcons

Minnesota Power Falcon Cam

Good news!

I’ve seen a second falcon at the nesting platform a couple of times now so there is, apparently, still a mate around. This will be particularly important when the babies hatch out and start wanting food all the time.

And… there are FOUR eggs!

Check in regularly, folks! It shouldn’t be too long before they hatch and the little ones are really fun to watch.

EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!

More on How the Media Covers Extremists [from The Gadflyer]

Sarah Posner does a nice job of summarizing the Alliance Defense Fund’s wacked out “Day of Truth”. According to our pal Alan Sears — remember him? — it’s the people who think gay/lesbian/transgendered people are EVIL who are being silenced. (I guess that Defense of Marriage Act was just something I dreamed, eh? Our government leaders wouldn’t really be trying to make it unconstitutional for gay people to enjoy equal legal rights… would they? Nah… must have been a dream.) The “Day of Truth” is ADF’s pathetic answer to yesterday’s “Day of Silence”.

Ms Posner also discusses how the media have misrepresented ADF (and the equally noxious Focus On Family) as just a regular old “Christian group”. Like they aren’t one of the larger threats to democracy around. You think Jesus would have approved of the crap they pull? I don’t think so. Jesus was about love and acceptance. ADF and Focus On Family are anti-Christian.

Speaking of anti-Christ[ian] stuff…

I watched the first installment of Revelation on TV last night. Fun stuff! I particularly liked how the kid who got hit by lightning wound up hanging from a tree branch! Hey, that’s what she gets for sassing her dad, right? (kidding, kidding)

And, man… Bill Pullman’s put on a few miles since I last saw him battling aliens in Independence Day! Well, as have we all, I guess. Still… Bill looks like maybe he’s been hitting the sauce. You know? He’s got that puffy look.

Anyway. Revelation.

I had a couple of thoughts while watching. First, why would God choose to deliver these incredibly important messages in such unreliable ways?!? Why would you count on some kid who’s on the verge of having her guts sold to the highest bidder? Isn’t that awfully risky? What if they take her apart before the message is delivered? Is it just tough shit for the world?? It seems to me that an omnipotent God would choose a completely fool-proof method of delivering his message AND he wouldn’t play silly games like having the message delivered in Latin for Pete’s sake.

ACLU Opposes National Database

I received an email “Action Notification” from the ACLU today and I’m not quite sure how I feel about this one.

According to the email, “Now, several Members of Congress are pushing legislation that would compile your most personal information, such as your name, address, social security number and perhaps even your DNA, into a national database. This giant network would then be accessible by numerous government officials and shared with Mexican and Canadian bureaucracies, dramatically increasing the risk of your personal information being stolen and abused. This proposed legislation would create a national system to store your personal contact information and personal biometric information, which could include your fingerprints, DNA or retinal scans. It would drastically alter who has access to your personal information. Thousands of government employees across North America would have access to these personal details, and hackers, thieves, terrorists and organized criminals would have a single one-shop destination for identity theft.”

The ACLU refers to these data as “personal information” but I think it’s more appropriately called “identifying information” — and I think there’s an important difference.

My “personal information” is information about what I think. If this database contained my voting record, a list of the organizations to which I belong, a list of the books I check out from the library or buy from Amazon, and a list of the television shows I watch, then I’d be alarmed. (Perhaps there are already government-owned databases with such information, though, so it’s probably not even an issue. Hello Patriot Act!)

What’s being proposed, though, is a database of identifying information. It seems to me that, considering the very real problem of identity theft, maybe a national database of identifying information is a GOOD idea, particularly if it includes biometric information. Certainly, as with any database containing potentially valuable information, there’s good reason to worry about the data being stolen.

I think the ACLU is getting mixed up about what the real problem is here, though. It’s not that the information is unnecessarily personal. It’s not really a civil liberties issue at all!

Suicide

Salon.com Life | My life has blown up in my face!: ” Threatened suicide, and did indeed genuinely wish to be dead. Although I knew pretty firmly throughout that I lacked the courage to actually do myself in, I nonetheless managed to convince my wife and then my therapist to have me committed involuntarily (a nightmare, let me assure you).”

My comments here really have very little to do with this letter from salon.com. (This is an excerpt from a letter someone wrote to salon’s advice columnist, Cary Tennis.)

What I want to comment on is the idea that suicide takes courage.

I suppose in some pretty superficial ways it does take courage to kill yourself. Ultimately, though, suicide is the coward’s way out. What really takes courage is staying alive, working through the despair, and taking the incredibly frightening chance that you may discover you’re not at all the person you thought you were.

Once a person settles on “an identity” (in the psychological sense), they’ll do pretty much anything to protect it. It’s all about a person’s sense of self. They may even kill themselves, but hey– at least they’ll go to their graves with their “self” intact. Those of use who are pretty much psychologically healthy might think that’s silly. Who would rather die than change? It’s more than just change we’re talking about here, though. It’s the likelihood of finding out that everything you thought you knew about yourself is wrong.

Now, that is damn scary.

Understand, I’m not saying all that all a suicidally depressed person needs to do is buck up and be willing to face facts! Not at all. It’s significantly more complicated than that. I’m only addressing the idea that suicide takes courage.

No. What takes courage is continuing to walk through the darkness, knowing that when you come out back into the light you might not be the person you were when you first entered the dark. You’ll leave the cave of despair and cross the river of change and, once you’re on the other side of that river, the new person will look back and be glad that other person is gone. NOW, though, while you’re in the cave you ARE that other person and you’ll do pretty much anything to protect yourself — even if it means killing yourself.

Crazy, huh?

(Please forgive the cave and river allegory. I was on a roll.)

Kooks On Parade

And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty (washingtonpost.com): “Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Supreme Court Justice, Anthony] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, ‘upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.’”

What a fucking kook!

It would be laughable if not for the fact that Vieira and his ilk have influence with people in Congress who pretty much hold the same opinions.

Later, Vieira went on to quote Jospeh Stalin, “the greatest political figure of the 20th century” according to Vieira, in recommending a solution for dealing with judges who don’t conform to the Christian right’s idea of how a society should run.

“No man, no problem”, said Stalin — and quoted Vieira. Stalin was talking about simply killing his opponents. Presumably Vieira had something a little less radical in mind.

When you’re done with this article, check out salon.com’s article on the same subject here. Both of these articles are in reference to the Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference I wrote about last week, by the way.