I'm sure you've heard all the uproar about how Kansas is working on redefining what science is to make the concept of "intelligent design" (a.k.a. Creationism) more easily taught in public schools. The new definition opens up the realm of explanation for things to those outside "natural phenomena," which of course means miracles and all sorts of magic and supernatural ideas can be discussed as reasonable explanations for otherwise scientific issues. "Today in biology, children, we'll be discussing how God created mitochondria." Of course, that begs the question "which god?" There are so many to choose from around the world...maybe they can only afford one in Kansas.
Yes, this is happening in the same state that just recently amended its constitution to prohibit gay marriage. So how are these two stories related? One possibility is that the forces behind the gay discrimination legislation are scared not only of "activist" federal judges striking down their laws as unconstitutional, but also of the mounting science providing evidence that homosexuality is an innate trait, akin to hair color or personality type, rather than supporting their view that it is a consciously adopted lifestyle. Here's what one recent study found:
A compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women but not heterosexual men, raising the possibility that homosexual brains are different, researchers in Sweden reported on Monday. ... "These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes," Savic's team wrote.
If homosexuality is innate, it would be completely against our expectations of individual freedom and equality for any laws to discriminate against those having the trait. That would quickly undermine the new no-gay-wedlock constitutional amendments Kansas and other states have passed.
But, with a revised definition of science, those supporting anti-gay measures can simply shrug off the new findings as being but one of many possible explanations. By virtue of this definition, they could more easily point to the Bible, the only science textbook true believers apparently need (I guess that would help balance the Kansas state budget to only have to buy a single book for every class students might take), to respond that "intelligent design" has crafted a scenario where our brains change based on the lifestyle we choose. Of course that's bunk, but that's why they call it "faith" -- you believe what you believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Of course, some might just call it ignorance.
So, dear Kansas, 34th member of the union, please put down your Bibles and read, for once, something that actually employs those scientific methods you ascribe -- measurement, experimentation, hypothesis testing, etc. You might find out that while faith and science can indeed co-exist, they are certainly not substitutes for one another.
Sigh...take a breath. Relax.
Your writing seems so riddled with anger that your comments are borderline irrational. Using ONE, yes ONE study, to try to correlate a connection between balancing the ciriculum of the public school system and prohibiting gay marriage? Come on, that's not very scientific of you.
Your countless attacks on people of "faith", as you quote it, saddens me as I actually liked reading your blog in the past. As for your last paragraph, why don't you use your "scientific method" you tout and disprove the Bible?
I'm not attacking people of faith. I have nothing against people who believe in their religion, as that is entirely their right and I respect that.
What does get me riled up is people inflicting their religion on everyone in this country (or in a state) by trying to change our laws and public (i.e., citizen-funded) institutions to promote a religion-centric agenda, especially one that is really only friendly to Christianity. That is not consistent with the philosophy on which this country was founded, and does not help us as we promote the fundamentals of democracy, freedom, and personal liberty around the world.
While I'm hardly irrational, I am angry. After all, as the old bumper sticker says, if you're not angry, then you haven't been paying attention.
Oh, and while I've said this before, I'll say it again: please use your real name. It's easy to respond critically when you can hide behind anonymity. After all, you and everyone know who I am -- it's really only fair for everyone else to know who you are. That's what meaningful discourse requires.
In regards to your request in paragraph 4, I have a fundamental right you failed to state in paragraph 2: privacy. Even so, I will post using my first name.
It may get you riled up, but the method in which "they" (i.e. religious people) try to make changes is better than the opposing side's techniques. Need I remind about you Michael Newdow's "Under God" case? Sue the school district, sue the President, sue the United States.
Democracy, like you mentioned, is the proper way to make changes. You need to elect officials which match your views, yet that takes a majority vote. Since they cannot get that, it seems that the process of choice for them is to try and separate (read: remove) God from society through litigation.
Ryan (thanks...always helps feeling like I'm talking to a person rather than some anonymous set of bits), I think the thing that we differ on is represented in your use of the word "society." I completely agree that people have the right to try to make *society* better, or at least more like what they think it should be, even if they're using their religion as a guide for their actions. But, and this is the crucial difference, religion should not be the motivation to change *government*. The separation of church and state, a fundamental premise of our government, suggests that very notion.
Why is there a difference between what you describe and what I am concerned about? Good question. Using religion to influence society usually, if not always, means that those who don't share your religion can escape your influence. In contrast, when you use religion to influence government, *all* citizens are directly affected even if they don't want to be. In essence, you've mandated how everyone should live based on the religious doctrine of just a subset of the populace.
You mention "majority vote." I suggest you read some works written by our founding fathers on that subject. You might be amazed at how concerned they were that this new government they were making was able to prevent "the tyranny of the majority" from removing the rights of the minority. That was one of their primary concerns, and overall, they were an incredibly homogeneous bunch in their religious mores. Given that our country is much more diverse today, that concern about majority tyranny should be even more central to our thinking rather than less.
Separation of church and state....ahhhh the words of Thomas Jefferson, yet nowhere found in the Constitution. I notice your use of "premise" when describing its role in government....that is your premise. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That gives you the right to freely practice whatever religion you want and forbades government from establishing a state church like the one they ran from back in England. THAT is what was intended.
As for our difference, I don't think it revolves around the word "society". I think it boils down to the role of religion and government...or as you put it, separation of church and state.
It is hard to balance on the edge of purity - pushing too hard in one direction might get you exactly to the place you were trying to move away from. That said, I leave you with some examples of reverse religious discrimination. Reply if you must, this is my last post.
Ryan, you're free to disagree with me, but so far you haven't offered any actual facts to back up your opinions.
When a government allows a particular religion's doctrine to be reflected in its laws, especially unnecessary laws, then it establishes that religion as the de jure standard. That situation inherently prohibits the freedom of those who do not follow that particular faith, which creates a conflict with the First Amendment. That's why the separation of church and state -- the concept represented in the First Amendment -- is a much larger and more complex issue than simply a) not establishing an official religion and b) not outlawing certain religions, as you seem to believe.
I don't understand your "balance on the edge of purity" comment.
None of the situations you mention are examples of reverse discrimination -- reverse discrimination is where the majority is prevented from doing something a minority is allowed to. The first two cases are simply examples of a poor understanding of the state and/or federal laws (i.e., ignorance and/or poor judgment) and there is no restriction of the majority that doesn't apply to minorities as well. The third example isn't discrimination because, again, the same standard is being applied to everyone (i.e., there is *no* discrimination).
As I've said, I have no problems with people acting on their faith as long as they aren't restricting the freedoms of those who don't share that faith. Changing laws to fit any particular religion-based model of society restricts individual freedoms and many of those restrictions encroach on the fundamental liberties we believe in. That's simply not right.