Post by IrishMauddib on Oct 30, 2008 13:32:00 GMT
One day I was thinking about some other threads on which I was discussing the many different definitions of the word "Atheism" that exist out there. Although a fun discussion, I realised that a beleif in god isnt actually that important. People beleiving really doesnt affect us in anyway, and its no wonder many say "Why do you bother arguing against it, its just faith". This is all well and good but I guess Im secular at heart. Its not faith, but what its used for that bothers me. Anyone who accuses me of having a problem with people having faith has missed the point of me so completely that I wouldn't be suprised to see them putting chalk in their cheese sandwich also.
On this note I have to say I was heartened by things like the relatively recent news from California about the legalisation of gay marriage. The predictable moves by the theistic community and ravings about morals are of course happening but its a step forward in society and a nervous step away from those nuts in the corner.
What has gay rights got to do with atheism? A lot actually. And I find that the timing on California a little funny which is what connected the topics in my head. A week or so before the ruling a woman died who was famous for being jailed for the crime of marrying a white person while she herself was black. Mildred Loving was jailed in the 60s for the crime of interracial marriage but then her victory before the Supreme Court led to the striking down of laws banning racially mixed marriages across the country. There is of course no good reason ever presented to me to suggest that someone shouldn’t marry into another race. The reason for her being jailed then? Religion of course!
The judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The overturning of this awful ruling lead the way to let more people marry for love, and not based on what some invisible man wants. Recognising in law that two people, harming no one, have decided to commit to a life together is more important socially and morally than anything based on something or someone that we have no evidence exists. Giving them all the benefits from tax status to inheritance rights is more important that I have the ability to articulate.
I think this ruling on gay rights is a perfect example of the same thing occurring. There is little or no reasons against homosexuals except those coming from divine authority. There is always some twisted statistics which have nothing to do with homosexuality that are trotted out, or a few sensationalist crazy claims like “If 100% of society turned gay we would die out” (A statement that not only would never come to be, but is also wrong because even in a 100% gay society there would still be reproduction).
There is also the common calls of the problems of promiscuity. There are many things that can be shown wrong with promiscuity so being a sexual issue the anti gay movement attempt, very dishonestly, to assign those problems of promiscuity to homosexuality in general. To do so is not only to assign the right problems to the wrong subject but also to miss the point that straight men would be just as promiscuous given the chance.
So instead the homophobic agendas turn to the one thing they have left, divine authority.
And without any evidence for such a being we have to assume that this authority was actually bronze age man made politics partially strengthened and backed up by a divine endorsement that no one can actually vouch for. I of course have no problem with them preventing gay marriage in their own churches. The church is their club and they can set their own rules and if they do not want gay people being part of their church or marrying in their church then so be it. If the catholic church in Ireland do not wish to perform gay marriage this is their right and I respect that. But their god(s) should not be used to influence a civil union between two people in a country with a secular constitution. Their wish is NOT our command.
The ruling in California means that 1000s of people can live their life together in a social, financial and legal situation just like 100,000s of others around them. I am very happy for the people who will be directly and indirectly affected in this way. Congratulations to all and best of luck in the November ballot that the parties of god are using to try to get around this new ruling. My thoughts are with you.
And let this be a lesson to us all. Atheism isnt just about what the word means or other semantics. Its about realising that when there there is NO other reason to put something into practise, law, morality, education or society OTHER THAN a divine mandate, we need to seriously reconsider such topics or have the decency to verify the base premise on which they lie.
It is a painful world we live in and it is always a wonderful thing when one heart finds another they can love and hold, cherish and feel safe and content with their whole lives. That someone would want to deny these hearts their love simply because the two hearts happen to pump blood to the same sexual organs is a position that will always baffle me.
On this note I have to say I was heartened by things like the relatively recent news from California about the legalisation of gay marriage. The predictable moves by the theistic community and ravings about morals are of course happening but its a step forward in society and a nervous step away from those nuts in the corner.
What has gay rights got to do with atheism? A lot actually. And I find that the timing on California a little funny which is what connected the topics in my head. A week or so before the ruling a woman died who was famous for being jailed for the crime of marrying a white person while she herself was black. Mildred Loving was jailed in the 60s for the crime of interracial marriage but then her victory before the Supreme Court led to the striking down of laws banning racially mixed marriages across the country. There is of course no good reason ever presented to me to suggest that someone shouldn’t marry into another race. The reason for her being jailed then? Religion of course!
The judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The overturning of this awful ruling lead the way to let more people marry for love, and not based on what some invisible man wants. Recognising in law that two people, harming no one, have decided to commit to a life together is more important socially and morally than anything based on something or someone that we have no evidence exists. Giving them all the benefits from tax status to inheritance rights is more important that I have the ability to articulate.
I think this ruling on gay rights is a perfect example of the same thing occurring. There is little or no reasons against homosexuals except those coming from divine authority. There is always some twisted statistics which have nothing to do with homosexuality that are trotted out, or a few sensationalist crazy claims like “If 100% of society turned gay we would die out” (A statement that not only would never come to be, but is also wrong because even in a 100% gay society there would still be reproduction).
There is also the common calls of the problems of promiscuity. There are many things that can be shown wrong with promiscuity so being a sexual issue the anti gay movement attempt, very dishonestly, to assign those problems of promiscuity to homosexuality in general. To do so is not only to assign the right problems to the wrong subject but also to miss the point that straight men would be just as promiscuous given the chance.
So instead the homophobic agendas turn to the one thing they have left, divine authority.
And without any evidence for such a being we have to assume that this authority was actually bronze age man made politics partially strengthened and backed up by a divine endorsement that no one can actually vouch for. I of course have no problem with them preventing gay marriage in their own churches. The church is their club and they can set their own rules and if they do not want gay people being part of their church or marrying in their church then so be it. If the catholic church in Ireland do not wish to perform gay marriage this is their right and I respect that. But their god(s) should not be used to influence a civil union between two people in a country with a secular constitution. Their wish is NOT our command.
The ruling in California means that 1000s of people can live their life together in a social, financial and legal situation just like 100,000s of others around them. I am very happy for the people who will be directly and indirectly affected in this way. Congratulations to all and best of luck in the November ballot that the parties of god are using to try to get around this new ruling. My thoughts are with you.
And let this be a lesson to us all. Atheism isnt just about what the word means or other semantics. Its about realising that when there there is NO other reason to put something into practise, law, morality, education or society OTHER THAN a divine mandate, we need to seriously reconsider such topics or have the decency to verify the base premise on which they lie.
It is a painful world we live in and it is always a wonderful thing when one heart finds another they can love and hold, cherish and feel safe and content with their whole lives. That someone would want to deny these hearts their love simply because the two hearts happen to pump blood to the same sexual organs is a position that will always baffle me.