Posts Tagged ‘ religion

Religion and Politics

For some interesting thoughts on religion and politics, read Why Do Christians Try to Impose Their Beliefs on Our Politics? on Alternet.  This interview with the author of Taming the Gods is an interesting look at these topics spanning continents.  In Republicans v Secular America, Dan Kennedy follows up on the idea of the imposition of religious views on the political system, but focused on the American tradition and current politics.  There are a couple of interesting referential links you should follow in that article, too.

How do you feel about where the spheres of religion and politics should intersect and how that differs from where you see them intersecting now?

Marriage – It’s Not a Matter of Belief

You probably know at least one person who has refrained from getting married because s/he says “I don’t believe in the institution of marriage.” or something similar.  While I understand many of the arguments people make for retaining their “single” status indefinitely, I think “not believing” in marriage is, well, a load of crap.

I recently read an article about a woman who ended up getting married to appeal to societal norms and to reap the rewards that come with “legitimizing” her relationship.  See here for the story.  While she says she doesn’t believe in marriage, she also says she enjoys the recognition that comes with using the words “married” and “husband”.

The fact is, marriage is a social contract that has evolved over time into what it is today – and that can be a variety of things.  I’ve met married people who don’t spend the workweek in the same town as their spouses.  I’ve met others that include three or more people  in their marriage (though only two can be recognized legally).  I’ve known married couples who despise one another but can’t seem to make the leap to divorce.  And I’ve known other couples who were completely devoted to one another and never needed the legal or societal recognition of a “marriage”, but still considered themselves married.

Long ago, marriage was only a social contract dealing with property.  A girl was the property of her father until she (and her dowry) became the property of her husband.  Many marriages were arranged.  Either the spouses learned to love each other or they learned to satisfy their needs for love elsewhere.

In modern times, marriage has evolved to become the legal recognition of a couple’s love and devotion to each other.  Arranged marriages are seldom seen in Western society.  Couples now are able to define their marriages for themselves.  Legally, there are no guidelines (as far as I know) beyond some archaic adultery laws that aren’t even enforced any longer.

I can’t even really define what it must mean when people say they don’t believe in marriage.  Are they saying that they don’t agree with the patriarchal history?  Are they saying they think people don’t take the vows seriously enough?  Are they young and trying to differentiate themselves from their parents?  How can a person not believe in something that really, truly does exist?  It’s like saying you don’t believe in the sun.  The semantics of the statement are baffling – marriage exists (just like the sun) whether you want to recognize it or not.  And if you don’t want to recognize it, well then you shouldn’t.  But I would say that means that you can’t attend other people’s ceremonies or celebrations.  That you can’t send anniversary cards or gifts.  That you refuse to recognize the legitimacy of other people’s marital commitments.

Stating that you “don’t believe in marriage” is just plain stupid.  It oversimplifies any legitimate objections you might have to the social, legal, or religious instutions and the impact that marriage (or singlehood) has on an individual or couple.  And it makes you sound like and idiot who can’t explain the reasoning behind your dislike or opposition to a long-standing human tradition.

Gram’s Catholic-ness

I’ve been spending far too much time with my grandmother lately.  Here’s the situation: Grandpa can’t drive because he’s in too much pain to walk most of the time from his Rheumatoid Arthritis and other ailments.  Grandma can’t drive because her eyesight blows.  I’m glad neither of them are driving – and you should be, too.  But that means that I have to take Grandma shopping one or two days a week.  And honestly, I have mostly enjoyed the one-on-one time with her.  In a way, we are finally getting to know each other.

Which brings me to the other day.  We’re waiting on Freistadt Road to turn into the post office (because Grandma won’t put checks in her unsecured mailbox in the middle of her very affluent neighborhood for fear of mailbox bandits) to mail a check to pay a bill.  As I begin to make the left-hand turn, Grandma blurts out “I know who I’m voting for” as if she’s a child proud of a new accomplishment and expecting a sticker or something.  I knew where this was going, but how do you just not respond to a statement like that?  So I ask her who the lucky candidate is, to which she replies “John McCain”.  I’m sure you can hear the fractures in my skull.  I continue to bite and ask her why she chose him and she starts blabbing about how he’s the only anti-abortion candidate and how she can’t believe the war is even an issue when every month abortion kills more human life than the war has since it began.  My heart rate is elevated, I can’t see clearly, and I’m in danger of talking back to my grandmother – which I’ve done before, but am unprepared to do while stuck in a Kia Rio with her sitting next to me.  So I contain the boiling blood and nod.  I mutter things like “yeah” and “uh-huh”, because I have nothing intelligent to say to a woman who really believes that crackers and wine are the body and blood of a man who died and rose from the dead more than 2000 years ago.

There is plenty that bothers me about this interaction.  I guess the biggest thing should be my grandmother’s ignorance about the world and her own granddaughter.  But then there’s the one-issue voting thing, too.  There is no reason that one issue should determine who a person votes for.  Why?  Because the candidate who supports that one issue holds a lot of other values and it all comes as part of the package.  So while you might think you are voting to save lives by picking a candidate who wants to repeal a 30+ year old supreme court decision, you are also picking a candidate who advocates keeping American troops in Iraq indefinitely.  This really does lack consistency.  (I also think there should be consistency between a person’s stance on capital punishment and war, but that’s another issue.)

Then there is the lack of understanding about abortion.  Everybody has probably heard the anecdote from Freakonomics about the effect that abortion  may have had on crime rates.  What’s not included in that and other discussions of abortion are the complexities.  Due to the religious stranglehold on federal funds that fund sexual education in may inner cities that cannot afford the programs on their own, many of our youth don’t learn about the effectiveness of condoms as a birth control method, much less a method to control sexually transmitted diseases.  What they do learn is that anything other than abstinence is highly risky behavior and there is nothing that can make it safer.  They learn that condoms are ineffective, even though most of the teachers know better.  Why?  Because the law that gives our inner-city schools  the money to execute these programs specifies that the teachers can’t say anything positive about any protective measure other than abstinence.  So we’ve got kids out there having sex without protection, believing lies told by enthusiastic boyfriends about how to make sure not to get pregnant.  And we wonder why teenage pregnancy is such a problem.  That’s just one of the facets of the issue.

And as for those people who say “If abortion were legal when my mother was pregnant with me, I wouldn’t be here”, I have sympathy for you.  You must not have had a happy childhood with a mother that really wanted you.  I can’t imgine how horrible you felt growing up.  I really am sorry.  But it hardly seems like a good reason to make it illegal for those who want to act responsibly after making a mistake.  On the other side of their argument, if my mother wasn’t allowed access to a safe, legal abortion a few years before I was born, I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t be here.  I’m very glad that she was able to decide when she was ready for motherhood despite not being perfect.

I know my grandma reads her Guideposts magazines.  They have these “inspirational” stories about people overcoming adversity.  At least that’s how Grandma would describe them.  But the last time I read one of the stories in one of these magazines, I could only describe it as preachy.  Not to mention the fact that stories were recycled from one issue to the next over and over again.  There was a point in my teenage years where Grandma would give me her old issues and ask me to read them.  She would ask me about the articles later, so I had to  make sure to at least skim them.  I would recognize the stories (after the first issue) and go and compare them to the stories in the previous issues.  I found them to be the exact same stories.  So I guess I would call them preachy and unimaginative.

Then Grandma complains to me that my sister has had no religious “upbringing”.  I think, in a way, not being attached to a church while growing up can be a valuable asset.  It forces you to confront the issue of religion as a whole rather than just assume that the way you were “brought up” is the only correct way to obtain eternal salvation.

Either way, my grandmother’s religion should not totally dictate who she votes for unless she’s going to at least try to reconcile inconsistencies within the church’s stance and/or the candidate’s stance.  I spent an entire semester of my education at Alverno College (a Catholic school) interning for Planned Parenthood of WI.  When I was setting up the internship I remember sharing my concerns about the compatibility of PPWI’s values with those upheld by my school and it’s sponsors the School Sisters of St. Francis. The internship coordinator assured me that the nuns would be more agreeable on the issue than it would seem.  Now, I am not claiming to understand the views of Alverno or the School Sisters of St. Francis, but there are a wide array of views that would allow for being a “good Catholic” (following the teachings of the Bible and the Pope) and allowing the existence of organizations that advocate responsible sex practices and the existence of safe, legal, and rare abortion.

Yes, there are going to be a few women who use abortion irresponsibly as a form of birth control.  It’s unfortunate.  But the vast majority of women who get abortions and doctors who perform them don’t enter into the surgical procedure without first having thought about it long and hard.  And if our interest here really lies with the well-being of the fetuses, then let’s consider the possibilities.  If the fetus isn’t aborted the mother has two options: keep the baby or give it up for adoption.  If she keeps the baby, she is ensuring a certain lack of opportunity for her and her child.  If she puts the baby up for adoption, she is usually ensuring a miserable trip through the foster care system for it.  The people who would be potential adopters are mostly now undergoing fertility treatments and using technology to get pregnant and give birth to a being that contains their own genetic information.  Truthfully, there are already plenty of kids who need good homes.  Until all of our children are being cared for in loving permanent homes, we shouldn’t be pushing more kids into the system.

Then comes my final, and strongest, argument for keeping abortion legal. Our society is secular – not religious.  Objection to abortion is a religious issue.  Christians, Muslims, and probably members of other religions object to abortion as against god’s will or something.  To them I say “Great.  Don’t get an abortion.  But don’t force others who don’t share your religious views to be bound by your religious laws.”  Christians don’t like living under Muslim law, right?  Muslim’s don’t like living under Christian law, right?  And nobody liked living under Roman rule, right?  So let’s have our separation of church and state.  Just because some people don’t eat meat on Fridays doesn’t mean you can’t get prime rib on Friday.  And we should always have that option.

There is only one situation in which  I can see outlawing abortion.  It’s called an IDEAL SOCIETY.  If and when we achieve it, I’ll be more than happy to sign my name on the petition to make abortion illegal.  But until then, keep the government out of my sex life and out of my doctor’s office.

Rant

I was looking through some old files today and found this.  I’m not sure what I did with it when I originally wrote it.  I may have sent it somewhere – a newspaper, perhaps.  Or I might just have let it sit there, encoded as 1’s and 0’s on my hard drive.  I thought I’d like to see if anyone has anything to say (that is, if anyone is reading!).

Here it is:

Ours is a secular country. Yes, the Founders each had their own view of religion and included references to “God” in our founding literature. This by no means establishes our country as “Christian” or any other religious affiliation.  Our country was founded to be a haven for the people who were persecuted for their beliefs in other places.  It is not our responsibility to maintain a “Christian” government (nor “Jewish”, nor “Islamic” or “Hindu”).  It is, however, our responsibility to ensure that people can worship as they please.

Let’s look at this in the context of gay marriage.  First, even Christians can’t agree about whether this practice should be allowed.  Some say that only heterosexual marriage is sanctioned by the church.  Many others, including myself, have attended homosexual ceremonies.  In my case, the ceremony was presided over by a gay woman pastor.  If a religion is so divided internally about an issue, who is to choose the “correct” path for all?  Remember, our country is secular and has a responsibility to allow every person to worship as s/he sees fit.  By outlawing gay marriage, wouldn’t we be outlawing the branch of Christianity that allows for this, thereby not allowing people to worship as they see fit?

Additionally, our country is highly equipped right now to allow for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and a whole slew of others in a wide array of belief and non-belief.  By taking one flavor of Christianity (the one that looks at homosexuals as unnatural and wrong in God’s eyes) and making it into law, anyone who ascribes to another belief will become disenfranchised.  Soon Washington D. C. will look a lot more like Tehran than it cares to admit.

The point lies here: Our legal system is based on morals that all can agree on, religious affiliation aside.  It is secular.  Each church, pastor, and priest has the ability to consent to marry a couple or not, depending on how they see that the couple fits into the belief structure of the organization.  Each church should maintain that right – not everyone needs or wants to get married in a church.

However, there is a whole section of our society over which there is some debate whether their homosexuality is something they are born with or something they choose to embrace who are constantly (and legally) prevented from holding the same rights as the rest of society. First let me ask you to consider this: Who in their right mind would engage in a lifestyle that ensured their social and legal illegitimacy by choice?  Even after considering this question many still believe that homosexuals choose their lifestyle, for what reason I can’t imagine.  Even so, aren’t we the “land of the free”?  Apparently here all are free except for homosexuals.  They need to be allowed (and guaranteed) the same legal rights as heterosexuals.  They need to be able to see each other when one of them is dieing in a hospital bed.  They need to be recognized, legally, for the important social unit they are.

If a priest, pastor, or other religious clergy wants to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, then that’s perfectly fine.  They can even refuse to marry a heterosexual couple because they live together or in other ways show signs of impropriety.  That is perfectly acceptable.  However, if our legal system refuses to marry people, homosexual or otherwise, based on a religious belief, we are all in trouble and the implications for a religious state in the United States of America are enormous.

If you want to live in a religious society, move to a religious state, join a convent, monastery, or other religious order or group that fulfills this need.  But leave secular society alone, we’re doing fine without the infusion of your religion and we need to keep America the melting pot it is for many reasons.  Without a secular government that respects all kinds of belief and non-belief in a deity, or country will quickly become homogenous as those who don’t fit leave and the only new people that come are those who ascribe to the approved belief system.  I guess it’s worked okay for Iran, but I don’t know how the US can handle it.

Let’s keep our country respectful of the documents on which it was founded.  Let’s make this an accepting place for all, no matter what religion or sexual preference they have.  We owe it to our future and our own stability as a nation.

I once had a woman ask me how a religious book could be nonfiction if its contents were not in the Bible, to which I replied “Ma’am there are some people who would say that the Bible is fiction.”  And her absolute shock was shocking.  Surely we all understand that our religion is not the only one, just as we understand that our skin color is not the only one.  Please, America, open your closed minds and stop forcing your beliefs on all those who surround you.  Please allow others to be as they are and as they need to be for themselves.