why are there still monkeys

Posted on February 5, 2014 by greg

I didn’t bother to watch the ‘debate’ between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. It would be like watching a ‘debate’ over which is the better school — Harvard or Hogwarts. One is real, the other is imaginary. I don’t care if there are people who actually believe in Hogwarts so long as they don’t claim there’s a rational and scientific basis for that belief.

In the same way, I don’t care if some folks believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, or that there’s no such thing as evolution. But if they put forth an argument that science supports that idea, then I’m left with no alternative but to assume those people are just stupid.

Case in point: Matt Stopera of Buzzfeed asked some of the creationists at the Nye/Ham bunfight to write a message to, or ask a question of, evolutionists. Here are some of them:

Yes. Yes, it’s completely illogical. Why are you even attempting to bring logic into this? You’re talking about a supernatural being you believe created…well, every single thing in the entire universe and universes beyond, and you’re relying on human logic? You’re talking about an omniscient and omnipresent entity whose mind ‘surpasses all understanding’ and yet you’re talking about logic?

But yes, even considering that, it’s still completely illogical.

Uh…the rotation of the Earth on its axis? See, this is where science comes in handy. The Earth was formed from the slow collapse of an asymmetrical cloud of dust and gasses and other crap leftover from the Big Bang. Since the cloud wasn’t symmetrical, the collapse wasn’t symmetrical either, and that imparted angular momentum to the process, which set the newly formed planet spinning. Since all this took place in space (where nobody can hear you scream and there’s no source of friction other than the nearby moon) the planet continues to spin. Unless you choose to believe that the Sky Magician creates a continuous light show to amuse his humans.

Also? Learn the difference between ‘their’ and ‘there’ and ‘they’re.’

If one existed, you’re damned right I’d be scared. I mean, this is the Divine Creator who said “I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their streets are now deserted; their cities lie in silent ruin. There are no survivors—none at all. I thought, ‘Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings. Then I won’t need to strike again, destroying their homes.’ But no, they get up early to continue their evil deeds.”

If there was any truth in Zephaniah 3:6-10, then I’d be scared out of my fucking wits. And that’s just one of dozens of genocidal urges your Divine Creator gave into. That dude is totally scary.

Dude. Okay…the theory of evolution is a theory. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. It seems nobody taught you what a theory is. Basically, a theory is just an attempt to coherently explain a phenomenon. Here’s an example. In the ancient Greek region of Magnesia ad Sipylum some folks discovered stones that would attract iron. Their theory was that the stones emanated tiny particles that swept away the air between the stone and the iron, and the consequent suction drew iron forward.

We no longer believe magnetism works that way. Why? Because people tested that notion and found it to be wrong. That’s how science works. You observe a phenomenon, you come up with an explanation, then you try to prove that explanation is wrong. If you succeed in proving it wrong, then you adjust the explanation — the theory. Science does NOT attempt to prove a theory is correct.

Our theories about magnetism are more sophisticated now, but we still don’t completely understand it. And yet nobody thinks magnetism is ‘just a theory.’ Magnetism is a fact. It’s what keeps your kid’s artwork stuck to the refrigerator. And evolution is a fact as well.

Seriously, the only thing more stupid than the previous question is the next one.

How did you ever get out of school? Seriously, how can you be so smugly stupid? If somebody taught you that evolutionists believe humans ‘came from monkeys’ then you were lied to. If you believed it without question, then you’ve been played for a sap.

This is really sad. This guy probably wasn’t born stupid. He was trained to be stupid. Somebody told him “Evolutionists believe humans came from monkeys” and he probably thought to himself, correctly, That’s a totally stupid thing to believe. But did he ask himself Do they really believe something that stupid? Apparently not. He didn’t bother to learn what evolution actually means — and nobody encouraged him to. In fact, they probably actively discouraged him from learning about evolution. And he just believed what he was told.

Here’s another place where science comes in handy. Science never believes what it’s told. Science always challenges. Science always demands evidence, and is never completely satisfied with it. That’s why theories — theories of gravitation, of magnetism, of evolution — continue to change over time.

The problem isn’t that some folks believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old or that they believe a Divine Creator cobbled humankind out of “the dust of the ground.” People believe all sorts of ludicrous and stupid stuff, and for the most part no real harm comes of it. The problem is that science is under attack. Not just the results of scientific research, but science itself — science as a system of understanding the physical world. Does it really matter that this guy thinks evolution means humans evolved from monkeys? No.

What matters is that he’s the product of a system that keeps people stupid. Stupid people are easier to control.

he’s no gandhi

Posted on January 6, 2014 by greg

So there’s this guy in Utah who’s decided to go on a hunger strike. His name is Trestin Meacham. He’s a Mormon, a former candidate for the Utah State Senate (he lost), and a member of the Constitution Party. As you might guess, the Constitution Party is a pretty conservative group. Their goal:

[T]o restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

They want a moratorium on immigration, English as the official language of Utah and the United States, an end to legal abortion (even in cases of rape and/or incest), a ban on pornography, to criminalize certain sexual behaviors, and marriage to be legal only for a man and a woman.

Trestin Meacham – hunger striker

It’s the last issue that’s sparked Meacham’s hunger strike. The day after District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah’s Amendment 3 (which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying) was unconstitutional, Meacham began to fast. He wrote:

“I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home. Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s heath and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.”

He’s been called crazy, a nut case, an unhinged whack job, and an extremist. He may well be all those things. But even though I disagree with his beliefs and his position on same-sex marriage, I respect his approach.

Suffragette hunger striker being force-fed

The hunger strike belongs to a very long and honorable tradition. Under Brehon Law (the civil law which governed behavior in pre-Christian Ireland), it was called troscadh. A person who believed he’d suffered an injustice would set himself outside the door of the offending party and refuse food. He would remain there, outside the door, until the offending party relented, or until he abandoned the troscadh, or until he died.

The moral weight of the act was staggering for both parties, especially in a culture where hospitality was so highly honored. There was tremendous social pressure on both the person fasting and the person accused of the injustice to reach a settlement. It was rare for the injured party to be sincere enough in his claim to actually starve himself to death, and for the offending party to be sincere enough to allow that to happen. On those rare occasions, it was understood that the person accused of the injustice would pay compensation to the family of the dead man.

When used by an individual against a group or a policy or an entire government, the act was called cealachan. It was more about social justice than individual justice. It was used by the Irish against the British for centuries, but the practice of the hunger strike is pretty universal. Gandhi used it several times, American suffragettes used it, Cuban dissidents used it, and detainees in Guantanamo have used it.

Gandhi during one of his hunger strikes

And now Trestin Meacham is using it. I confess, I don’t understand his reasoning. I can’t think of how allowing same-sex couple the legitimacy of marriage could be considered an injustice. This is what he says on his blog:

On Friday the 20th of December, a federal judge overturned the State Constitution of Utah and ruled against and its restriction against same sex marriage. In so doing, Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the U.S Constitution were violated. Even worse a law voted on by a strong majority of the people of Utah was rescinded, thus robbing the people of their voice in government. And if this law remains, the natural rights of free speech and religious freedom, vouched safe by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, will be violated.

But how is free speech violated? He has a blog that can be read by anybody, in which he openly expresses his religious and political views. That IS free speech. Nor can I see any barrier on his ability to openly practice his religion. Nobody is preventing him from attending services, nobody is interfering with his right to live his life according to his religious beliefs. Nor is anybody interfering with his hunger strike, which is in itself an expression of his civil rights.

This has nothing to do with hatred of a group of people. I have friends and relatives who practice a homosexual lifestyle and I treat them with the same respect and kindness that I would anyone. This is about religious freedom, and an out of control federal government.

Well, no — it’s not about religious freedom. It’s a ludicrous claim. Nor is it about ‘an out of control federal government.’ It’s about the simple fact that Meacham’s religious and political beliefs are in conflict with the law. He may not hate gay folks — I can’t see into his heart, so I don’t know. But I do know he wants the right to discriminate against them.

Suffragettes engaged in hunger strikes to secure the right of women to vote. Gandhi went on hunger strike to support Indian independence from Britain and to stop violence between Muslims and Hindus. IRA hunger strikers were fasting to assert their right to be recognized as political prisoners, not common criminals. The Gitmo hunger strikers are protesting their continued incarceration without having been tried or convicted of a crime.

Trestin Meacham, on the other hand, is fasting to prevent people who love each other from marrying.

I support Meacham’s right to protest the law. I support his right to speak out against same-sex marriage in Utah. I support his right to go on hunger strike, and starve himself to death for a cause he believes in — despite the fact that I think his cause is absurd and hateful. I even support his right to claim he’s doing this a noble cause.

But there’s nothing at all noble about denying other folks the rights you enjoy yourself.

Addendum: Today Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a halt to Utah’s same-sex marriages pending an appeal of Judge Shelby’s ruling. More than 900 same-sex couples were married during the interval between Shelby’s decision and Sotomayor’s order. None of this had anything to do with Meacham, his fast, or his civil liberties.

sorry, totally our fault

Posted on November 22, 2013 by greg

Okay, on behalf of all the non-Christians in These United States, let me apologize to the Christians. We’re all terribly sorry. Had we known that somebody in a California Costco warehouse put labels on some Bibles that read $14.99 Fiction, and had we known those Bibles would be shipped to a Simi Valley, California Costco store and put on the shelves, and had we known that Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach was going to be there last week shopping for a Christmas gift for his wife, and had we known that Pastor Kaltenbach was going to see those Bibles and totally shit his pants in outrage, we’d have stopped that guy in the warehouse from affixing those stickers. We’re really terribly sorry about that.

Okay, I’m just kidding. We totally did that on purpose. Sometimes we just feel a wee bit frisky and decide ‘Let’s go fuck around with some Christians.’ Seriously, I don’t know what gets into us. Maybe it’s our diet or something, I don’t know. But it’s totally our fault.

You Christians are completely justified in your righteous fury at the Bible being labeled as fiction. What happened was, we were just sitting around after one of our many sex orgies, talking about how women were created from the rib of a man, and how Noah lived to be 950 years old, and how Lot impregnated both of his daughters — you know, stuff like that. And we were all “Dude, that sounds like total fiction.” And then things got a little bit out of hand.

Youthful high spirits, and all that. But still, we probably owe Pastor Kaltenbach an apology. We ruined his shopping experience. He was absolutely correct when he said:

“We are supposed to be living in an era of tolerance, but what Costco did doesn’t seem too tolerant.”

He’s entirely right; it’s rude and inappropriate to insult the Bible. In fact, it’s wrong to insult anybody’s holy book. Again, I’m not a Christian, so when in doubt about how Christians are supposed to behave I always look to that font of Christian charity, goodwill, tolerance, and wisdom: FreeRepublic.com.

Where is The Holy Queeran?

The Koran should be in the toilet paper section

Here in the PNW a bus service had these pro Palestinian adverts. I made up a bunch of Israeli flag stickers and plastered those signs with them. The local pro Palestinian org. threw a hissy fit. I love what I do.

I always place pork products over the “halal” certified lamb.

Bet a Muslim employee put them there.

I’d be tempted to pick up a few Korans and put them over with the bulk packages of toilet paper.

they obviously don’t want the business of Christians during this holiday season

[T]hese fiction stickers are something I’ve heard rumor of: libtards have supposedly a supply somewhere of stickers reading “fiction” that they slap on anything that hurts their sensibilities.

That last guy? I don’t know how he found out about our Libtard Sticker Project. Somebody has been talking out of school. Probably one of the Satanists — those fuckers just can’t keep a secret.

Anyway, I’m not trying to make excuses here. We were wrong, I admit it. But c’mon, you’d have done the same thing if you’d thought of it first. You know you would.

So how about this: we’ve put a sticker on a few Bibles, and you guys have torched a few mosques and murdered a bunch of Sikhs and accused Buddhism of being a cult and refused to allow Pagans and Wiccans to be buried with their holy symbols. You made some mistakes, we made some mistakes. How about if we just call it even, okay? Shake on it, go our separate ways, let bygones bury their hatchets. What do you say? Think if over, let us know.

But I’ve got a feeling y’all just won’t agree to that.

can i discriminate just a little bit, please?

Posted on October 18, 2013 by greg

If you want to skip all the details, here’s the meat and potatoes of this post:

Betty Ann Odgaard: “Really, I’m not a bad person — I just want to be able to discriminate against gay folks getting married without getting in trouble or losing any income over it. Don’t make me do it, okay?”

This is how it all started: a gay couple wanted to get married at the Görtz Haus Gallery, which is a popular local marriage venue (it also serves as a rather tony luncheon bistro, has a flower shop and a gift shop, and offers picture framing). The owners of the Görtz Haus, Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard, informed the couple that they don’t allow gay weddings in their facility.

The Odgaards, you see, are Mennonites (well, she’s a Mennonite; he’s just a Lutheran with Mennonite tendencies). The Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective states marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Therefore it would violate the tenets of the Odgaards’ religion if they allowed a same-sex marriage in the Görtz Haus.

Unfortunately for the Odgaards, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa since 2009. The gay couple filed a grievance with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and the ICRC essentially told the Odgaards they were required to follow the law like everybody else.

Görtz Haus

All pretty straightforward so far, right? The law says the Odgaards can’t “discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability.” The Odgaards were discriminating because sexual orientation. The Odgaards were told to stop doing that. And the green grass grows all around, all around. End of story, right?.

Not if you’re Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard. Given the choice between 1) following the law and 2) following the tenets of their faith, the Odgaards chose a third option: they decided to sue the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

Betty and Richard Odgaard

Lawyers from the Becket Fund for Religious LIberty have offered up a novel legal argument (and by ‘novel’ I mean ‘loopy’). You can read the entire complaint here, but from my reading it seems their argument rests on three points.

Point One — the Odgaards aren’t homophobes. They hire gay folks to do stuff for weddings, they serve lunch to gay folks in the bistro, and they let gay folks buy stuff in the various Görtz Haus shops.

[T]he Odgaards have willingly hired and served gays and lesbians throughout the Gallery’s history

Point Two — it’s not the Odgaards who want to deny same-sex couples the use of the Görtz Haus for their weddings, it’s their religion.

The Odgaards’ decision not to plan, facilitate, or host wedding ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs is an action taken without regard to the sexual orientation of any potential customers. Their decision is instead based on a religious conviction against personally and publicly promoting activities that violate their religious beliefs.

Point Three — if they’re required to choose between following the law like everybody else or following their religion, then they’d have to stop allowing anybody from getting married in the Görtz Haus, and that would reduce their income.

Despite the devastating impact it would have on their business, the Odgaards’ religious convictions would require them to stop hosting any wedding ceremonies rather than knowingly host wedding ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

In other words, the Odgaards are simple gay-friendly folks whose religion prohibits them from letting same-sex couples get married in their facility, so they’d very much like the court to let them get by with just this teensy-weensy bit of discrimination so their church will be happy and they won’t lose any income. Is that so unreasonable?

Oh, and if the court won’t allow them a little leeway in discrimination, then the Odgaards would like the court to “declare that the Iowa Civil Rights Act violates the Iowa and United States Constitutions.” They’ve also asked that the ICRC to pay them “nominal damages” for their unfair treatment. Also attorney fees.

I suspect Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard are fundamentally decent people. I believe they truly enjoy putting on weddings at Görtz Haus. And I’m sure they appreciate the income brought by those weddings. I’m confident that what they really want is for everything to go back to the way it was before that same-sex couple complicated their lives by asking to get married in their facility.

That’s how privileged people always feel. They always want the world to return to a simpler and more comfortable time when they didn’t have to consider the feelings or wants or needs of other folks.

There’s a lot of real religious repression taking place in the world. There are places where practicing religion is actually dangerous. But Iowa isn’t one of them. Nobody is preventing the Odgaards from practicing their religion. Nobody is denying them the right to express their religious beliefs. If there’s a conflict between their religion and the law, they have a clear choice: follow their religious beliefs and accept the loss of income from weddings, or follow the law and continue to live comfortably.

The choice may be uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t be difficult.

inherit the windbags

Posted on October 1, 2013 by greg

New Ulm, Minnesota. You may know it as the Gateway to Mankato, or the Polka Capital of the Nation (hometown of the legendary polka band Harold Loeffelmacher and the Six Fat Dutchmen, as well as accordion virtuoso Whoopee John Wilfahrt). But there’s more to this town of 13,594 good citizens than The Jolly Lumberjack Polka.

New Ulm is also the home of Martin Luther College, where eighty educators teach some eight hundred students to be deliberately and willfully stupid. College faculty recently discouraged students from participating in the New Ulm Actor’s Community Theatre’s production of Inherit the Wind. The faculty expressed concerns about “perceptions that could be formed by some constituents due to the material portrayed in the play.”

Spencer Tracy and Frederic March (Inherit the Wind)

If you’re not familiar with the play (or the brilliant 1960 film adaptation starring Spencer Tracy), it’s loosely based on the 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial, in which a Tennessee high school teacher was put on trial for illegally teaching evolution in a state-funded school. That’s right, it used to be illegal to teach evolution in some states. Essentially, the play is about the conflict between religious faith and freedom of thought. The title, appropriately, comes from Proverbs 11:29.

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Martin Luther College ain’t having any of that freedom of thought business, no sir. Nor any of that evolution foolishness. The college is owned and operated by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and WELS Lutherans are pretty strict about creation. The WELS website states:

The Bible and Lutherans teach that at the beginning of time God created heaven and earth and all creatures. He did this in six days. He spoke his almighty word to create all things. He made everything out of nothing.

That isn’t any more stupid than other creation myths (though I’m rather partial to the ones that involve turtles; I like turtles). And hey, it’s their college and they can believe what they want and teach what they want, right?

Martin Luther College (statue of Luther pointing to a passage in the Bible and asking "Who wrote this shit?"

Martin Luther College (statue of Luther refuting turtle-based theology)

But it seems rather cowardly of them to discourage their students from participating in a play that discusses some pretty important issues. It doesn’t speak well of their ministry if they’re afraid for it to be challenged — not in court, like in the play, but by a play put on by a community theater in a town of fewer than 40,000 people. It shows a distinct lack of faith in their students if they’re afraid that acting in a play (or working on the production crew) will cause them to form ‘perceptions.’

The college’s Vice President in charge of Student Affairs put it best:

“This is a ministerial school. People employing our students need confidence about their views.”

Heaven forbid their students might start to think for themselves — then Lutherans who aren’t afraid to talk about faith and evolution wouldn’t engender confidence in their flock.

That, right there, is stupid piled on top of stupid. I really don’t care if they choose not to believe in evolution; they have a right to be ignorant. What bothers me is that this is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to extremism. It’s the sort of closed-minded thinking that leads to abstinence ‘education’ in schools, and rejection of vaccines, and government shutdowns. Be stupid yourself if you want, but surely it’s a sin (if sin exists) to force other folks to be stupid too.

Let me leave you with these words of wisdom from Whoopee John Wilfahrt…

Polka, baby, polka.

served with pride

Posted on September 14, 2013 by greg

So this morning, in an effort to avoid doing the work I really need to be doing, I decided to wade through rabidly conservative FreeRepublic.com again. I usually do this once a week or so.

A lot of my friends think I’m masochistic to read FreeRepublic, but I don’t think so. It’s true that I often find myself offended, or even pissed off, by what I read. And sometimes I find the comments funny in a ‘holy shit, can people really be this stupid’ sort of way. But I should also say that every time I read that site, I find a few people who make logical and valid points. I almost always disagree with those points, but it’s sort of comforting to know that even on FreeRepublic there are rational conservatives.

Sadly, that wasn’t the case this morning. I was most discouraged by a discussion thread grounded in an article in The Guardian: Gay marine bids farewell with show of support from colleagues. I fully expected to find anti-gay comments and slurs in the discussion, but the universal depth of the hatred surprised me. Here are some of the comments:

I support heterosexual troops only. maddog55

The site of that flag dishonored in that way, makes me want to throat punch this homosexual. svcw

You can’t be gay and a Marine. It’s an Oxymoron. It’s like saying you can be a Homosexual and be a Christian. Sorry, direct opposites. Just because the deviant-in-Chief, and his sycophants have (hopefully) temporarily allowed it, does not make it right, correct, or good. SoConPubbie

This is actually a desecration of the flag. You might as well have the queer stripes on our national flag! Disgrace and dishonor. Viennacon

Gay marine bids farewell with show of support from ~~colleagues~~ fellow faggots… Chode

Probably glad to get this c**ks***er out of their unit. Well, he is isn’t he! Ruy Dias de Bivar

United States Maureens. twister881

Fag. servo1969

i wanna puke but working here in faggotland, my puke levels have reached the bottom. americana

Another daily reminder of what a sick, utterly deviant country this has become. A disgraceful abomination. greene66

I’m a veteran. I served four long full years as a medic. I come from a Marine Corps family (I was the only member of my family NOT to serve in the Marines). I may not always like what the military does, or how they do it — but anybody who puts on a uniform and serves the nation deserves a certain amount of respect.

Bryan Eberly, U.S. Marine

Not to get dramatic, but there are occupations in which you have to rely on your comrades. Police officers, firefighters, military troops. You don’t have to like the person you’re working with, you don’t have to agree with them, you don’t need to be friends with them, but you goddamn better be able to rely on them. And they goddamn better be able to rely on you. Religion doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter, race doesn’t matter, gender doesn’t matter — not when you need a hand. When you need a hand and that hand is extended, you grab hold. When somebody else needs a hand, you extend yours and you hang on tight. It’s just that simple.

The military depends on unit cohesion. Bigots like maddog55 or SoConPubbie argue that openly gay troops are a threat to unit cohesion. The fact is, they are the threat. If you’re unwilling to extend your hand to help somebody because of some immutable aspect of that person’s being, then you make the unit weak.

The marine in the article, Bryan Eberly, needed courage and trust in order to come out as gay. That’s what you look for, courage and trust. I’d much rather serve in a unit with Bryan Eberly than any of the so-called ‘patriots’ above, who apparently believe only certain people deserve respect.

Addendum: And just to prove my earlier point about FreeRepublic.com, there’s this new comment in the discussion thread:

I’m grateful for his service. onona

The odds are I probably wouldn’t agree with onona on many issues, but he now has my respect. I’d extend my hand to him. Hell, I’d even extend my hand to maddog55 — but I wouldn’t trust the hateful bastard to extend his to me.

not from an angry place

Posted on August 7, 2013 by greg

The Gortz Haus is a lovely building, constructed in the 1930s. It was originally a Lutheran church. Now it’s a privately-owned business serving the public. According to its website, Gortz Haus is a ‘gracious space‘ with a ‘fabulous new bistro, art gallery, frame shoppe and floral shoppe.’ It’s advertised as a ‘perfect venue for your wedding ceremony, reception, rehearsal dinner, baby shower, anniversary or other special event.’

Gortz Haus: gracious, fabulous, perfect — unless you’re gay.

Gortz Haus

An Iowa couple toured the Gortz Haus looking for a venue for their wedding. Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars were happy with the facility until their host asked “Is this for a gay wedding?” When they responded that it was, the couple were told “I can’t take your money, and I don’t do things for free.”

This, of course, caused a problem — a problem which made the local news, thereby sparking a spirited but wildly uninformed debate.

Betty Gortz Odgaard

In an interview shown on local television, Betty Gortz Odgaard said the decision not to host a same-sex wedding was “…not from an angry place.” The decision, she said, was

“…based on our religious beliefs. We want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand that comes from our faith, our convictions. I think we should just stand by that no matter what.”

The Odgaards are Mennonites, and the official position of the Mennonite church is pretty clear. The 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective expressly states marriage is between one man and one woman. There are factions within the Mennonite faith that are welcoming to the LBGT community, but those factions aren’t recognized by the church authorities.

For a LOT of folks, this issue is framed entirely by religious belief. They see this as an issue of religious freedom. They interpret this as an act of religious expression.

— She has her religious convictions and we have religious freedom in this country! Since when does this couple’s rights TRUMP hers???

— Thank you, Dick & Betty, for standing strong on your convictions. Those of us who are like-minded will continue to support you. We appreciate that you refuse to be intimidated or bullied to the point of changing your policy. You are doing the right thing! Bless you!

— I am proud of you for standing up for your religious beliefs. Seems like everyone else has rights but the Christians in this sad society anymore. You have a right to stand firm on what you believe as well.

Betty Odgaard says their decision to refuse to allow a same-sex couple to marry in their establishment doesn’t come from an angry place, and I believe her. She says their decision is based on their Mennonite beliefs, and I’m sure she’s sincere in those beliefs. The problem, though, is this is a matter of civil law, not religious belief.

The official Mennonite position on same-sex marriage is clear, and so is Iowa law. Iowa Code section 216.7 (Unfair Practices – Accommodations or Services) states:

1. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager, or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:
a. To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability in the furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges.

And there it is. The Gortz Haus is a public accommodation, and therefor it’s not allowed to refuse service or accommodations to Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars because they’re gay and want to marry.

Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars

Is the Stafford-Ellars marriage in violation of the religious beliefs of the Odgaards? Yes, it absolutely is. Is their marriage a violation of the Odgaards freedom of religion? No, it’s absolutely not. The Osgaards are free to practice their religion; they’re not free to discriminate against others because of it.

The same law that requires the Osgaards to provide services and/or accommodations to Stafford and Ellars also protects Betty Gortz Osgaard from being denied services and accommodations because she is white, or a woman, or heterosexual, or a Mennonite.

Betty Osgaard says she believes she and her husband should stand by their faith “no matter what.” I respect that, even if I don’t agree with their position. There’s something honorable about the willingness to make sacrifices for your beliefs. Sadly, there are lots of states that will allow the Osgaards to openly discriminate against same-sex couples. But Iowa isn’t one of them.

Stafford and Ellars, I’m told, are considering a lawsuit against Gortz Haus. I guess we’ll eventually find out whether the Osgaards are really willing to stand up for their religious beliefs “no matter what.”

jackassery

Posted on February 19, 2013 by greg

I’m a big believer in academic freedom. I’ve managed to acquire a handful of degrees from various colleges and universities, and for a brief time I was actually an academic my ownself. When I heard the State of Oklahoma was considering legislation promoting academic freedom, I was understandably pleased.

I said to myself, “Yay Oklahoma!” I started to read HR1674, the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, with a song in my heart. The legislation begins like this:

[A]n important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens.

Who could argue against that? We totally want our students to develop mad critical thinking skillz. Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! The proposed legislation acknowledges that encouraging the development of those critical thinking skills can lead to controversy.

[T]he teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

So far, so good, right? Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! Yay controversy! Controversy is good. Controversy makes you think. Controversy requires you to…wait. Wait a minute. Wait just one fucking minute here, buddy. Biological evolution? The chemical origins of life? Global warming?

Are you crazy? There’s no scientific controversy about evolution. There’s no scientific controversy about the origin of life or anthropogenic climate change. Those are established scientific facts. What jackass wrote this proposed legislation?

This jackass.

Gus Blackwell (Jackass – Oklahoma)

This is Oklahoma state legislator Gus Blackwell. Would you be surprised to discover Blackwell is a Republican? Or that he’s a Baptist minister? Or that he’s spent the last two decades employed by the Oklahoma Baptist General Convention?

I’m not suggesting Blackwell is a jackass because he’s a Republican or a Baptist. There are lots of Republicans and Baptists who go through life without engaging in jackassery. No, Blackwell is a jackass because he’s introduced legislation that would give his Baptist theology the same credibility as science. Blackwell is a jackass because his proposed legislation goes on to say this:

[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

What does that mean? In effect, it means if students were to write a report claiming climate change is a hoax or arguing that the Earth is only 6000 years old and women were created from the rib of Adam, they couldn’t be ‘penalized’ with a bad grade. In an interview, Blackwell said,

“I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks. A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”

Blackburn is a jackass, but he’s right about that. A certainly student does have the freedom to write a paper arguing against evolution. But if that paper was written for a science class, then the student should expect a failing grade. Not because the teacher may disagree with the student’s belief system, but because that student would be what we academics call ‘wrong.’

Blackwell and his ilk (yes, there is an entire ilk of jackasses like Gus Blackwell) propose this sort of legislation under the guise of promoting ‘academic freedom.’ I’m sorry to say they know as much about academic freedom as they know about science.

Academic freedom, like evolution or gravity or anthropomorphic climate change, is an actual thing. It has an actual meaning. It’s not a matter of opinion. And it’s got nothing to do with students having the freedom to write papers about humans cavorting with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

Academic freedom doesn’t apply to students representing a personal point of view. Legally, it doesn’t even apply to teachers or college professors. In the United States, the courts have ruled that academic freedom resides in the university. Academic freedom gives the university the power to appoint faculty and set standards for their behavior.

All major universities in the U.S. abide by the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which insures that:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

It was academic freedom that enabled Blackwell to attend Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theology Seminary and study Baptist theology. Yay academic freedom! But academic freedom doesn’t mean he can legislate that his theology be given equal credibility as science. Boo jackassery!

Happily for Gus Blackwell, though, nobody has proposed legislation limiting his freedom to be a jackass.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job

Category Archives: stupid religious stuff