I used to read the comics in the newspaper a while ago. This was back in 2002-2004, when the internet wasn't as archaic as it was when I was in junior high, but not the mammoth marketplace of information and entertainment that it is today.
When I went off to college in 2004, I stopped bothering with the actual newsprint and started reading all my comics in one place: www.comics.com.
One day, to my utter horror and dismay, my favorite comic strip was discontinued. The disclaimer notified me that the author had decided to start his own website...so every day I would visit two sites; one for the usual newspaper comics and one for the guy who just had to be a loner. As the days went by he started expanding past the usual 3-4 panel strip and started running full Sunday sized comics in the middle of the week. I was dumbfounded. How on earth was this strip going to run 6 large frames in a normal newspaper? It wouldn't fit, and no newspaper I knew would allow it.
It was then I realized that this was a new breed of graphic medium, and I had stumbled onto something that I never even thought could exist:
The webcomic.
Ordinary people with more than ordinary artistic abilities were able to run a comic on a website and make a living from doing so. I knew people like Scott Adams and Jim Davis had become rather famous (and wealthy) from the popularity of their strips, but that was because so many newspapers carried them that they were able to publish strip compilations and branch into novelty advertising (anyone remember those suction-cup footed Garfields in the windows of stationwagons?)
But this, this was different. This was one comic, on one website, funding the artist's livelihood through the power of the internet and the strength and generosity of the fanbase. To me, it was unbelievable; and today, it's a growing market.
The following are my personal favorite comics, with a little something about them or why I like them. Most have their own lists (on site) of their own favorites, so if you feel inclined to check one out feel free to expand even further.
Comics.com
-Pretty self explanatory; any comic you'll find in your newspaper, you're likely to find there.
Ctrl+Alt+Del
-A very heavily gamer based comic, it follows three friends and the impact gaming has on their lives (with an alternate, fairly rare science fiction story arc). I am by no means a gamer, but I've held my own in serious conversations with gamers just from reading this one.
Hijinks Ensue
-I have a love/hate relationship with this one. The dialogue is so bizarrely witty that I eventually wander back to it from time to time. The artist claims that it updates three times a week (changed from "Every Mon/Wed/Fri"), but most times you're lucky to see 1-2 comics every week and a half. The artist gets his inspirations from actual technological/gaming/entertainment news though, and I suppose that's a plus.
PvP Online
-Started out as another gaming comic (I seem to like them), this one slowly digressed into more of a social/popular technology critique with sitcom drama overtones. Odd description, but it makes for a fun read.
Least I Could Do
-If you ever wanted a comic about a man-whore with a very candid personality, this one's for you. Not necessarily NC-17, because the artist never really draws anything risque, but I wouldn't recommend it for young children.
Looking For Group
-Written by the same duo who do Least I Could Do, "Looking for Group" is a World of Warcraft/Dungeons and Dragons spoof comic featuring an altruistic elf and an undead warlock with ZERO morals. Great dialogue, but again not for young children.
Sheldon
-This is that spinoff that opened my eyes to the world of webcomics. It follows the exploits of a 10 year old boy who becomes a multi billionaire after writing a program that speeds up internet traffic, the grandfather that raises him, and his anthropomorphic duck. Very, very witty dialogue and amazing use of shading and fonts to convey emotion through written word. I highly recommend this one.
AF Blues
-If you're in the AF, you should know this one- the unofficial webcomic of the US Air Force that follows Capt Ken "Barbie" Dahl, F-22 pilot extraordinaire. Funny for those who aren't militarily inclined as well.
Wondermark
-If they had webcomics in the Victorian era, Wondermark would be the chief among them. The artist uses digitally scanned wodcuts and illustrations from the 1800's and adds his own script. Hillarity ensues. If you like steampunk, the 19th century, beards, and top hats, this one's for you.
XKCD
-Who knew stick figures could be so well drawn? What this one lacks in "art" it makes up for in content. Combining mathematics, computer programing, statistics, poetry, physics, popular culture, and (believe it or not) romance, XKCD makes for one complete black and white package. I used to hate it (thinking it drawn too crudely), but I've come to include it amongst my favorites.
Scenes from a Multiverse
-This one is the newest of the bunch, but still good. Mon-Thu you see a humorous glimpse at some random zone in the multiverse we live in, and on Fri the artist uses a "repeat destination", which is chosen by the voting readers. Anyone can vote, and anywhere can be Friday's strip. Good gimmick (because it keeps the readers participating in the production process), and it feels a bit like a Rubes or a Far Side (with its lack of solid story arc and constant re-invention).
Evil, Inc.
-This one had a great opening idea: what if supervillians were tolerated because they ran their businesses legally? Evil Inc. was formed, and that changed how villains and heroes interacted. Unfortunately, the comic has slowly become a bit of a soap opera (replete with extremely long story arcs), and it's lost that original creative spark. Maybe it'll come back with a good business merger.
Questionable Content
-This one is the antithesis of any gaming comic out there, and it's arguably my favorite. Take one part Seinfeld, one part Friends, one part indie subculture, and absolutely NO political correctness, and you have QC. The women in the cast far outnumber the men (which may or may not be a bonus, depending on what you like) and the art is continuously improving. Everytime the artist is sick, he substitutes your normally scheduled comic for a static bird (ironically named "yelling bird") who says things that would make Sara Silverman blush.
If Least I Could Do was not for children, this one should be kept higher out of reach of the little ones. The strip's title is not just for decoration.
I grew up on Dilbert, The Far Side, Garfield, Peanuts and most importantly, Calvin and Hobbes. From time to time I find myself amazed that I consider most of the webcomics I read to be more interesting, if not simply better drawn and written, than the old black and white paper funnies. Times change. People change. I'm sure the comic industry will change right along with them. Who knows what we'll be reading in 10 years? Who knows what we'll be reading next week?
As long as it interests us, we'll keep our eyes on it; and if it's funny enough, we'll keep coming back for more. Thankfully it doesn't cost me 50 cents a day to read Questionable Content, and I plan to get my daily dose of that one for years to come.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Part 1: Thoughts on God
Six years ago I bought a copy of the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching for you folks who don't use military time). I read it, liked it, didn't understand it, and forgot about it.
Five years later I was finishing up my Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science and found myself in its capstone class. I realized that after two years of intense political science education (most of which involved either statistics or yet another re-examination of Plato's allegory of the cave) I found myself completely inundated with Western political philosophy and zero exposure to Eastern political philosophy. Frustrated that I had been taught endless abstract theory and had virtually no education on either the machinations of our own political system or how our opposites in the Orient think, I decided to write my senior thesis paper on the differences between East and West. Thankfully, the topic of the class was "Empire", and since I knew nothing of East Asian politics (or history) I decided to teach myself.
My paper, I decided, would include something very few people at my college of choice talked about and something no one in the polisci department ever mentioned...religion. I would examine how religion influenced the concept of empire in both China and Europe (the answer I'll save for another posting).
After reading the entire section in my school's library on both Daoism/Confucianism (which I still don't fully understand) and Christianity, as well as the history of imperial Europe and China, I wrote my paper, submitted it, and turned my attention towards studying Christianity.
Very few people have actually read the Bible, and I find that sad. Having read it cover to cover three times, I can admit that actually reading it is no small feat...but if you say you're something you should back it up with a little work.
Three questions bugged me to the point of indescribable frustration. First, why would a solitary God be jealous? Second, why are Christians so adamant that there is only one God when the old testament mentions several? And finally, who are the Nephilim?
Those questions lead me to turn my attention from Christianity to religion as anthropology. Not the anthropology of religion, which studies the anthropological aspects of religion, but religion itself as an anthropological tool. I wanted to study the history of gods as a history of humanity. I devoured A History of God, The Case for God, The Evolution of God, God is Not One, The God Delusion, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Religion, Your God is Too Small, The Crisis of Islam, The City of God, St. Augustine's Confessions, and There is No god but God (just to name a few), along with the Bible, the Qur'an, the Daodejing, The Chuangtzu, The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic, Confucius' Analects, the Upanishads, the Bahgavad Gita, The Book of Mormon, the Tanakh, The Bhuddist Scriptures, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, sections of the Popul Vuh and the Adi Granth, The Satanic Bible, The Corpus Hermeticum, The Druidry Handbook, The Secret Doctrine, Witchcraft Today, and anything else I could get my hands on. If I had paid someone to sanction all that I could have at least earned a masters by now.
All that made me more informed, but also more confused. I eventually realized that no matter how much more in depth my research went, I would always believe in the existence of a god. I use the lower case because though I believe, I'll can never have the certainties that the truly faithful do.
An old chemistry teacher of mine (douchebag as he was) taught us every day that chemical reactions neither create nor destroy matter; rather, they change matter's form. That, along with the second law of thermodynamics (concerning the state of entropy in a system not in equilibrium), has me convinced that this very chemical universe of ours could not have been created from absolutely nothing and that order could not have been made out of chaos without a guiding hand. Human beings are one near perfect piece of bio-engineering, and there is no logic in believing that they are a miracle of happenstance.
The above two paragraphs solidly qualify me as a Deist, but there's no church for Deists and I want to do something on my Sunday mornings (sleep being overrated). That, along with my need for a qualitative label leads me to search for something to call myself. That's one thing I noted in my study between East and West; the East just does- they don't care much for labels. We in the West have it firmly engrained in our psyche that labels, categories, and boxes are needed so that we know who and what we are. Once you put a label on something, you know how to interact with it, and you know how it's likely to interact with you.
Makes sense, right?
The following are my three conclusions on the existence of God. I wrote a comprehensive list of questions I had developed over the course of my studies, but to list all my questions alone would give me enough material to write a book, and I'd rather not do that. These posts are ridiculously long as it is.
I. There is no G/god.
God doesn't exist. Every religion we have is an evolution of our primal need to explain what we can't understand, and as science evolves (just like we did) we'll be able to explain everything we used to view with superstitious eyes. One day, we will no longer have a need for the adult version of an invisible friend.
Yeah. Tell that to near death experience survivors, the non-medicated people who have seen demons sitting by their beds at night, the people who have heard the voices, those who have seen their prayers answered, and the ballsy few who mess around with the astral plane.
If you're going to look at all possibilities, you have to include this one. As mentioned earlier, though I see this as a possibility, I view it with little to no probability. There are too many unexplained phenomenon, too many "perfect coincidences", too many records, accounts, historical customs, and traditions that involve "god/God/gods".
If you stop to take the time to research every historical creation myth you'll notice that the creator gods are often given credit for creating the cosmos. While I firmly believe that someone or something created what we have now, I've often wondered if a cosmic creator is a bit too grand. Giving credit to one being for creating everything in our known universe is an easy way to rationalize and justify what we find, but I believe it to be more plausible for credit to be given for the creation of life on earth (or, at most, the earth itself).
I believe in micro-evolution. It's hard not to. But to deny the existence of any being or beings that created us, guide us, and deal with us after we die doesn't make sense to me; and, to be honest, I find that stance a bit arrogant. Are we and everything we have and see really just one big accident? Even if there really is no one out there, a little humility goes a long way. I can honestly say I know very, very few humble atheists. Acknowledging a grander scheme (at the very least) works wonders for how we view things.
The other side of the coin is that there is no G/god because what we call religion is really the planet's greatest cargo cult (this one's for all you X Files fans). Go watch enough of those Ancient Aliens shows on the history channel and you'll start noticing some odd stuff we can't explain. This is where hairs start to split; if we really are here because of aliens, then indeed there might not be a G/god...but that means we aren't an accident.
Perhaps it would be better to say "God doesn't exist", because that gives us a qualitative- and leads me to the next point.
II. God does exist.
Here I use the capital, but there are two possibilities.
First, he exists as the monotheistic faiths imagine (I'm not going to discuss/compare/contrast them here). What we have is only one overarching God who will punish the wicked and unbelieving after death because...he's God. It doesn't really matter if it's fair for God to send people to hell for their unbelief. He made the rules, he made the board, he made the pieces...it's his game, and you rolled the dice. He can be all loving, but what truly loving parent doesn't punish his or her children for making the wrong choices? Maybe God's punishments are summed up and passed after one final judgement, and we all need to sit up and pay attention.
Is this option possible? Yes, I think it is. Ask a Christian anything theological or existential, and he'll give you an answer. You might not agree with it or like it, but that's not the point- the point is that there is an answer.
Is this option plausible? No, I don't think it is. Pre-Babylonian exile, no major or minor civilization (with a recorded history) on earth was purely monotheistic. If God in the singular did exist, then he'd be most like the God of the second possibility.
Second, he exists as the overarching "Great Spirit"; singular in true nature, but vast in numbers of form and function. Thor, Isis, Ra, Shiva, Kuan Yin, Zeus, Mars, Papa Legba...they're all very personal, very human, ways to see bits and pieces of the one true Godhead. A four star General has a different face, a different facet, a different personality for his office, his old college buddies, and his family, but in the end he's still the same being. There aren't many different Generals...just different ways he's seen, and different ways he does business.
This model would be most in line with the Hermetic concept of the Nous (or big, all encompassing mind) of God. "Is God many? Don't be stupid. God is one", The Hermetica says- but caveats that God is too incomprehensible to us to be fully understood, and how we imagine God is just our smaller, weaker minds trying to grasp the infinite.
Is this option possible? Yes, I think it is. Plausible? Also yes. Our concept of God has become more spiritual and less literal, more vague and less dramatically defined, more universal and less ethnically inclined than it was in Jesus' day (and even before)...and yet people still see the effects of this "God" and feel it's presence. Go read heart surgeon Dr. Maurice Rawling's To Hell and Back (or listen to/view the documentary here and you'll be a little more convinced that not only has God not gone away, but he more closely resembles the Hermetic model than the Judeo-Christian model.
III. Gods did/do exist.
Odd as it may sound to you, this is the one I'm most inclined to believe, and I even have my own synthesized theory (thanks Doc Carmone...)
Cargo cult originators, extra-dimensional beings, true gods; whatever you call them, the socio-historical records of every single human civilization mention them. I cannot believe that every single human society in history "invented" the concept of higher deities, especially when the more advanced ones had stories, tales, and records of physical interaction with them (Egyptians, Summerians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Chinese, Norse, etc). As Steve McNallen, founder of modern American Norse reconstructionism (Asatru) explains here - people during polytheism's heyday survived through practicality; if the gods didn't have a practical use, then there was little use for them at all.
The big questions are "What now?" and "Why does this matter?"
Here's where my theory comes in. It's based, oddly enough, off of Warhammer Mythology and a single page from James Lovegrove's Age of Ra. The gist of Warhammer Mythology is that there are many gods, each one being equally real, and that whomever a person choses to follow has authority over the follower's soul in the afterlife. If you chose to follow one god, you go to that god's heaven after death as payment for service in life. Age of Ra is set in a future where the whole world worships a very real Egyptian pantheon, because the Egyptian pantheon won the war. Each god we have in the world now did, at one point, exist, and they fought amongst themselves for human worship. A god's progress was measured by the extent of his following; the worldwide spread of Christianity showed that God was triumphing over Allah, Buddha, Olorun, and everyone else.
After all, didn't God say that he is a jealous God and thou shalt have no other gods before him? Didn't Jesus tell his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? God sounds like quite the expansionist, doesn't he?
This, to me, makes the most sense, but also requires the most faith. The universal God we have today wasn't created until the Babylonian exile, and even then he was in the infant stages. Many different gods have many different heavens to offer those who worship and serve, and as the denizens of the world becomes more aware of their neighbors the gods and their servants clash. Maybe the violent contact is only at the human level, and the strife is over our bull-headed and selfish interpretations of what our culture or religion believes is the correct way to see the all encompassing God. Maybe there is only one heaven, and each view is just a different lens through which we look at the end picture.
But the problem with the Hermetic model is, oddly enough, God himself. YHWH is the most unique god in the history of our race, because unlike every other god governing parts of the earth he chose his people. No other god ever chose a group of humans; in fact, many humans chose which god to worship, where, and when. YHWH picked his people, then helped them when they followed and shwacked them hard when they went astray. He was jealous, selfish, vindictive, warlike, powerful, violent, possessive, and most important of all: faithful. He was the god of his people, and that's what leads me to believe this third model is plausible.
If all pantheons were similar in structure but different in name (Zeus is Ra is Odin is Jupiter is Amaterasu is The Jade Emperor is whoever), then there lies the possibility that the gods are just a coincidental aspect of the human psyche made form...but we have the rogue. We have the one oddball, the lone god who threatened the current pantheon (see Psalm 82:6) and went into business for himself. Why on earth would one small band of beleaguered, outnumbered, outgunned nomadic screw ups invent a single god (when a whole pantheon would have been psychologically stronger)...unless there was some shred of truth to the whole thing. And where you have two different examples of pieces in a system, you cannot simply discount the whole system as fictitious. We have an A, because pantheons were popular, and we have a B because there was reason to break from the traditional polytheistic model.
And if there were at one point many gods, and what we have today is the evolutionary result of a struggle between one breakaway deity and the others, then maybe there are many gods...
And maybe whichever one you pick will let you into his or her heaven. As the Grail Knight said: "Choose...wisely."
In the end, what does this all mean? Who knows. I don't. In fact, I've given up wondering and thinking and trying to figure it all out. If I ever find an answer, I'll let you know. If I don't, and I die before I pick someone...
...and there is no god/God, then it won't matter. I'll never know.
...and there is a God (first example), then hopefully my faith that he exists at some level is enough.
...and there is a God (second example), I should be fine.
...and there are Gods, and I don't settle on one...
maybe I'll get to hang with Morr. He seems like a nice guy.
Five years later I was finishing up my Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science and found myself in its capstone class. I realized that after two years of intense political science education (most of which involved either statistics or yet another re-examination of Plato's allegory of the cave) I found myself completely inundated with Western political philosophy and zero exposure to Eastern political philosophy. Frustrated that I had been taught endless abstract theory and had virtually no education on either the machinations of our own political system or how our opposites in the Orient think, I decided to write my senior thesis paper on the differences between East and West. Thankfully, the topic of the class was "Empire", and since I knew nothing of East Asian politics (or history) I decided to teach myself.
My paper, I decided, would include something very few people at my college of choice talked about and something no one in the polisci department ever mentioned...religion. I would examine how religion influenced the concept of empire in both China and Europe (the answer I'll save for another posting).
After reading the entire section in my school's library on both Daoism/Confucianism (which I still don't fully understand) and Christianity, as well as the history of imperial Europe and China, I wrote my paper, submitted it, and turned my attention towards studying Christianity.
Very few people have actually read the Bible, and I find that sad. Having read it cover to cover three times, I can admit that actually reading it is no small feat...but if you say you're something you should back it up with a little work.
Three questions bugged me to the point of indescribable frustration. First, why would a solitary God be jealous? Second, why are Christians so adamant that there is only one God when the old testament mentions several? And finally, who are the Nephilim?
Those questions lead me to turn my attention from Christianity to religion as anthropology. Not the anthropology of religion, which studies the anthropological aspects of religion, but religion itself as an anthropological tool. I wanted to study the history of gods as a history of humanity. I devoured A History of God, The Case for God, The Evolution of God, God is Not One, The God Delusion, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Religion, Your God is Too Small, The Crisis of Islam, The City of God, St. Augustine's Confessions, and There is No god but God (just to name a few), along with the Bible, the Qur'an, the Daodejing, The Chuangtzu, The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic, Confucius' Analects, the Upanishads, the Bahgavad Gita, The Book of Mormon, the Tanakh, The Bhuddist Scriptures, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, sections of the Popul Vuh and the Adi Granth, The Satanic Bible, The Corpus Hermeticum, The Druidry Handbook, The Secret Doctrine, Witchcraft Today, and anything else I could get my hands on. If I had paid someone to sanction all that I could have at least earned a masters by now.
All that made me more informed, but also more confused. I eventually realized that no matter how much more in depth my research went, I would always believe in the existence of a god. I use the lower case because though I believe, I'll can never have the certainties that the truly faithful do.
An old chemistry teacher of mine (douchebag as he was) taught us every day that chemical reactions neither create nor destroy matter; rather, they change matter's form. That, along with the second law of thermodynamics (concerning the state of entropy in a system not in equilibrium), has me convinced that this very chemical universe of ours could not have been created from absolutely nothing and that order could not have been made out of chaos without a guiding hand. Human beings are one near perfect piece of bio-engineering, and there is no logic in believing that they are a miracle of happenstance.
The above two paragraphs solidly qualify me as a Deist, but there's no church for Deists and I want to do something on my Sunday mornings (sleep being overrated). That, along with my need for a qualitative label leads me to search for something to call myself. That's one thing I noted in my study between East and West; the East just does- they don't care much for labels. We in the West have it firmly engrained in our psyche that labels, categories, and boxes are needed so that we know who and what we are. Once you put a label on something, you know how to interact with it, and you know how it's likely to interact with you.
Makes sense, right?
The following are my three conclusions on the existence of God. I wrote a comprehensive list of questions I had developed over the course of my studies, but to list all my questions alone would give me enough material to write a book, and I'd rather not do that. These posts are ridiculously long as it is.
I. There is no G/god.
God doesn't exist. Every religion we have is an evolution of our primal need to explain what we can't understand, and as science evolves (just like we did) we'll be able to explain everything we used to view with superstitious eyes. One day, we will no longer have a need for the adult version of an invisible friend.
Yeah. Tell that to near death experience survivors, the non-medicated people who have seen demons sitting by their beds at night, the people who have heard the voices, those who have seen their prayers answered, and the ballsy few who mess around with the astral plane.
If you're going to look at all possibilities, you have to include this one. As mentioned earlier, though I see this as a possibility, I view it with little to no probability. There are too many unexplained phenomenon, too many "perfect coincidences", too many records, accounts, historical customs, and traditions that involve "god/God/gods".
If you stop to take the time to research every historical creation myth you'll notice that the creator gods are often given credit for creating the cosmos. While I firmly believe that someone or something created what we have now, I've often wondered if a cosmic creator is a bit too grand. Giving credit to one being for creating everything in our known universe is an easy way to rationalize and justify what we find, but I believe it to be more plausible for credit to be given for the creation of life on earth (or, at most, the earth itself).
I believe in micro-evolution. It's hard not to. But to deny the existence of any being or beings that created us, guide us, and deal with us after we die doesn't make sense to me; and, to be honest, I find that stance a bit arrogant. Are we and everything we have and see really just one big accident? Even if there really is no one out there, a little humility goes a long way. I can honestly say I know very, very few humble atheists. Acknowledging a grander scheme (at the very least) works wonders for how we view things.
The other side of the coin is that there is no G/god because what we call religion is really the planet's greatest cargo cult (this one's for all you X Files fans). Go watch enough of those Ancient Aliens shows on the history channel and you'll start noticing some odd stuff we can't explain. This is where hairs start to split; if we really are here because of aliens, then indeed there might not be a G/god...but that means we aren't an accident.
Perhaps it would be better to say "God doesn't exist", because that gives us a qualitative- and leads me to the next point.
II. God does exist.
Here I use the capital, but there are two possibilities.
First, he exists as the monotheistic faiths imagine (I'm not going to discuss/compare/contrast them here). What we have is only one overarching God who will punish the wicked and unbelieving after death because...he's God. It doesn't really matter if it's fair for God to send people to hell for their unbelief. He made the rules, he made the board, he made the pieces...it's his game, and you rolled the dice. He can be all loving, but what truly loving parent doesn't punish his or her children for making the wrong choices? Maybe God's punishments are summed up and passed after one final judgement, and we all need to sit up and pay attention.
Is this option possible? Yes, I think it is. Ask a Christian anything theological or existential, and he'll give you an answer. You might not agree with it or like it, but that's not the point- the point is that there is an answer.
Is this option plausible? No, I don't think it is. Pre-Babylonian exile, no major or minor civilization (with a recorded history) on earth was purely monotheistic. If God in the singular did exist, then he'd be most like the God of the second possibility.
Second, he exists as the overarching "Great Spirit"; singular in true nature, but vast in numbers of form and function. Thor, Isis, Ra, Shiva, Kuan Yin, Zeus, Mars, Papa Legba...they're all very personal, very human, ways to see bits and pieces of the one true Godhead. A four star General has a different face, a different facet, a different personality for his office, his old college buddies, and his family, but in the end he's still the same being. There aren't many different Generals...just different ways he's seen, and different ways he does business.
This model would be most in line with the Hermetic concept of the Nous (or big, all encompassing mind) of God. "Is God many? Don't be stupid. God is one", The Hermetica says- but caveats that God is too incomprehensible to us to be fully understood, and how we imagine God is just our smaller, weaker minds trying to grasp the infinite.
Is this option possible? Yes, I think it is. Plausible? Also yes. Our concept of God has become more spiritual and less literal, more vague and less dramatically defined, more universal and less ethnically inclined than it was in Jesus' day (and even before)...and yet people still see the effects of this "God" and feel it's presence. Go read heart surgeon Dr. Maurice Rawling's To Hell and Back (or listen to/view the documentary here and you'll be a little more convinced that not only has God not gone away, but he more closely resembles the Hermetic model than the Judeo-Christian model.
III. Gods did/do exist.
Odd as it may sound to you, this is the one I'm most inclined to believe, and I even have my own synthesized theory (thanks Doc Carmone...)
Cargo cult originators, extra-dimensional beings, true gods; whatever you call them, the socio-historical records of every single human civilization mention them. I cannot believe that every single human society in history "invented" the concept of higher deities, especially when the more advanced ones had stories, tales, and records of physical interaction with them (Egyptians, Summerians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Chinese, Norse, etc). As Steve McNallen, founder of modern American Norse reconstructionism (Asatru) explains here - people during polytheism's heyday survived through practicality; if the gods didn't have a practical use, then there was little use for them at all.
The big questions are "What now?" and "Why does this matter?"
Here's where my theory comes in. It's based, oddly enough, off of Warhammer Mythology and a single page from James Lovegrove's Age of Ra. The gist of Warhammer Mythology is that there are many gods, each one being equally real, and that whomever a person choses to follow has authority over the follower's soul in the afterlife. If you chose to follow one god, you go to that god's heaven after death as payment for service in life. Age of Ra is set in a future where the whole world worships a very real Egyptian pantheon, because the Egyptian pantheon won the war. Each god we have in the world now did, at one point, exist, and they fought amongst themselves for human worship. A god's progress was measured by the extent of his following; the worldwide spread of Christianity showed that God was triumphing over Allah, Buddha, Olorun, and everyone else.
After all, didn't God say that he is a jealous God and thou shalt have no other gods before him? Didn't Jesus tell his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? God sounds like quite the expansionist, doesn't he?
This, to me, makes the most sense, but also requires the most faith. The universal God we have today wasn't created until the Babylonian exile, and even then he was in the infant stages. Many different gods have many different heavens to offer those who worship and serve, and as the denizens of the world becomes more aware of their neighbors the gods and their servants clash. Maybe the violent contact is only at the human level, and the strife is over our bull-headed and selfish interpretations of what our culture or religion believes is the correct way to see the all encompassing God. Maybe there is only one heaven, and each view is just a different lens through which we look at the end picture.
But the problem with the Hermetic model is, oddly enough, God himself. YHWH is the most unique god in the history of our race, because unlike every other god governing parts of the earth he chose his people. No other god ever chose a group of humans; in fact, many humans chose which god to worship, where, and when. YHWH picked his people, then helped them when they followed and shwacked them hard when they went astray. He was jealous, selfish, vindictive, warlike, powerful, violent, possessive, and most important of all: faithful. He was the god of his people, and that's what leads me to believe this third model is plausible.
If all pantheons were similar in structure but different in name (Zeus is Ra is Odin is Jupiter is Amaterasu is The Jade Emperor is whoever), then there lies the possibility that the gods are just a coincidental aspect of the human psyche made form...but we have the rogue. We have the one oddball, the lone god who threatened the current pantheon (see Psalm 82:6) and went into business for himself. Why on earth would one small band of beleaguered, outnumbered, outgunned nomadic screw ups invent a single god (when a whole pantheon would have been psychologically stronger)...unless there was some shred of truth to the whole thing. And where you have two different examples of pieces in a system, you cannot simply discount the whole system as fictitious. We have an A, because pantheons were popular, and we have a B because there was reason to break from the traditional polytheistic model.
And if there were at one point many gods, and what we have today is the evolutionary result of a struggle between one breakaway deity and the others, then maybe there are many gods...
And maybe whichever one you pick will let you into his or her heaven. As the Grail Knight said: "Choose...wisely."
In the end, what does this all mean? Who knows. I don't. In fact, I've given up wondering and thinking and trying to figure it all out. If I ever find an answer, I'll let you know. If I don't, and I die before I pick someone...
...and there is no god/God, then it won't matter. I'll never know.
...and there is a God (first example), then hopefully my faith that he exists at some level is enough.
...and there is a God (second example), I should be fine.
...and there are Gods, and I don't settle on one...
maybe I'll get to hang with Morr. He seems like a nice guy.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Few Rules for Life
A very good friend of mine is a retired high school teacher. To the best of my knowledge he taught mostly English, but after 40 some odd years his last class was one on sociology. Why he ended on such an odd note I'll never know. The funny thing is that he had the perfect personality of a sociologist. Too bad his doctorate was in Sinology.
To the average high school student like myself none of the following made any sense. As time goes by, however, one or two of the rules will pop into my mind involuntarily. Most times, it's when I least expect it. Who would have thought that an off the cuff sociology lesson would still be running strong 6 years later?
I've often wondered what would happen if I could get these rules published. After all, if Maurice Sendak can get Where the Wild Things Are into print, surely I could get a few phrases on the shelves of your favorite bookstore. With our society's love of sound bytes, blurbs, and portable aphorisms, I'd probably see the book in a Barnes & Noble in no time. However, I don't think I'd be comfortable profiting off of something someone else taught me when every time I think of a rule I think of the teacher. Credit's due where credit's due.
The numbered lines are the rules, and the italicized in-betweens are corollaries that I've pulled out of the notes I took (and still have) from that class. I've found that just because they aren't actual rules doesn't mean they don't apply.
Life Rules for His Last Class
By Dr. Antonio Carmone
I. Never let anyone tell you how long is short or how short is long.
II. Always synthesize: your degree of genius is based off of how well you can synthesize.
The only way to be extraordinary is to be extra-ordinary: that is, above the ordinary.
III. The metaphor is sublime. If one is a metaphor, one is above the extraordinary.
Metaphor is vision.
Most people have direction. Very few truly have vision.
IV. Wonder.
V. You have six senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and instinct.
VI. Spontaneity is a gift.
VII. Only you should know the lowest levels of your persona.
VIII. The truth is both beautiful and ugly- to say that it is always either is untrue.
IX. See things as a whole, for to do so is vision; but never forget to appreciate specific detail.
Never always say yes about a thing, never always say no about a thing.
Always distinguish.
Change changes the adaptation process.
X. We may not have to agree or disagree, but we must always be aware, for our happiness and unhappiness lies on this decision.
Do not plane against the grain of the wood.
You cannot pass judgement on values.
XI. Never fall for the argument ad hominem.
You can be compelled by the norm.
XII. Be a big burner (have passion), but know when to moderate the flame.
XIII. Never let anyone cut you down to their size.
XIV. "Would to God the gift to give us/ To see ourselves as others see us..." -Frost
XV. A sociogram is the eyes to another person's soul.
Don't let anybody stalk your mind.
XVI. Never fall for the argument "either/or".
XVII. Never let anyone hang the guilt complex on you.
Take these for what they are and do with them what you will...and next time you realize that you're synthesizing several concepts into one bigger idea, feel free to chuckle a little. You might be a bit of a genius after all.
To the average high school student like myself none of the following made any sense. As time goes by, however, one or two of the rules will pop into my mind involuntarily. Most times, it's when I least expect it. Who would have thought that an off the cuff sociology lesson would still be running strong 6 years later?
I've often wondered what would happen if I could get these rules published. After all, if Maurice Sendak can get Where the Wild Things Are into print, surely I could get a few phrases on the shelves of your favorite bookstore. With our society's love of sound bytes, blurbs, and portable aphorisms, I'd probably see the book in a Barnes & Noble in no time. However, I don't think I'd be comfortable profiting off of something someone else taught me when every time I think of a rule I think of the teacher. Credit's due where credit's due.
The numbered lines are the rules, and the italicized in-betweens are corollaries that I've pulled out of the notes I took (and still have) from that class. I've found that just because they aren't actual rules doesn't mean they don't apply.
Life Rules for His Last Class
By Dr. Antonio Carmone
I. Never let anyone tell you how long is short or how short is long.
II. Always synthesize: your degree of genius is based off of how well you can synthesize.
The only way to be extraordinary is to be extra-ordinary: that is, above the ordinary.
III. The metaphor is sublime. If one is a metaphor, one is above the extraordinary.
Metaphor is vision.
Most people have direction. Very few truly have vision.
IV. Wonder.
V. You have six senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and instinct.
VI. Spontaneity is a gift.
VII. Only you should know the lowest levels of your persona.
VIII. The truth is both beautiful and ugly- to say that it is always either is untrue.
IX. See things as a whole, for to do so is vision; but never forget to appreciate specific detail.
Never always say yes about a thing, never always say no about a thing.
Always distinguish.
Change changes the adaptation process.
X. We may not have to agree or disagree, but we must always be aware, for our happiness and unhappiness lies on this decision.
Do not plane against the grain of the wood.
You cannot pass judgement on values.
XI. Never fall for the argument ad hominem.
You can be compelled by the norm.
XII. Be a big burner (have passion), but know when to moderate the flame.
XIII. Never let anyone cut you down to their size.
XIV. "Would to God the gift to give us/ To see ourselves as others see us..." -Frost
XV. A sociogram is the eyes to another person's soul.
Don't let anybody stalk your mind.
XVI. Never fall for the argument "either/or".
XVII. Never let anyone hang the guilt complex on you.
Take these for what they are and do with them what you will...and next time you realize that you're synthesizing several concepts into one bigger idea, feel free to chuckle a little. You might be a bit of a genius after all.
Gay Marriage
I wrote this a while ago as a longer and more in-depth reply to an argument about the decision in Maine to not legalize gay marriage back in November of 2009. A friend of mine had expressed his frustration (on Facebook) about the citizens of Maine having something taken away from them by the voters. I countered that the people of Maine never truly lost the "right" to gay marriage because they never had it in the first place, and that homosexual marriage is not a right. Over the next 6 hours I pitted logic, case study, and my wits against many of his friends that were just as frustrated (if not downright bitter and enraged) at the situation as he is.
After that little comment war about his status (which I fought completely from my iPhone), I decided to write out the argument I had in my head as if I were writing a paper. The end result was an approximately 10 page document that very closely resembled what you'll read below.
After posting my paper on Facebook someone mentioned that I should start a blog. At first I hated the idea; I don't mind being a quiet observer within the greater blogosphere, but if I were to create a blog I don't think I could keep it as interesting and professional as the ones I enjoy reading. I feared that I would put a large amount of time, energy, and focus on it for a few days and then let life come in and take over, leaving the blog as little more than a glorified version of my gay marriage paper.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
And now, for your reading pleasure, the paper that started it all...
There exists a cultural tug-of-war over the issue of same sex marriage (SSM).
It is an issue that raises both awareness and temperaments in our country,
as ours is a country based on the double edged strength of moral foundations
and the free willed voice of the people. Proponents of SSM argue for it on the
belief in rights to happiness and choice. Those against SSM use two
angles, moral tradition and religious beliefs, to counter SSM.
I will examine the issue from a third angle, one based in neither morals nor religion,
but rather in legality.
The following is a rebuttal to the three arguments most commonly used to make
SSM acceptable- though not necessarily legal- through blunt force,
manipulation, and sentiment. As of yet, I have only heard the following
arguments in favor of SSM, each of which will be examined in the following paragraphs.
belief in rights to happiness and choice. Those against SSM use two
angles, moral tradition and religious beliefs, to counter SSM.
I will examine the issue from a third angle, one based in neither morals nor religion,
but rather in legality.
The following is a rebuttal to the three arguments most commonly used to make
SSM acceptable- though not necessarily legal- through blunt force,
manipulation, and sentiment. As of yet, I have only heard the following
arguments in favor of SSM, each of which will be examined in the following paragraphs.
I am not here to explore every available tangent of the topic. These are simply my thoughts.
"SSM is a (Civil) Right"
First, and perhaps most often, marriage has been called a right. A
right, per Merriam-Webster, is "something to which one has a just
claim". One does indeed have the just claim to the pursuit of marriage,
but by no means the legal right to unrestrained marriage, as will be
claim". One does indeed have the just claim to the pursuit of marriage,
but by no means the legal right to unrestrained marriage, as will be
explained in the final section.
Civil rights, again per Merriam-Webster, are defined as "the
nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal
liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th
amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress".
In order to claim a civil right, one must have a legal or constitutional
basis for the claim. Both legal and constitutional civil rights are
protected through Acts and Amendments, passed by Congress or ratified by
the States, as has been deemed appropriate throughout history. There is
no sense in claiming a right that does not exist, and as a civil
right, there should be no comparison made between SSM and the subject.
Marriage is therefore not a right because it is not written into our
laws as one. If one were to examine the 13th Amendment one would note
the absence of the word 'marriage'. The same can be said for the 14th
Amendment. The 13th addresses the issues of slavery and indentured
servitude. The 14th Amendment directs that States shall not "deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Life, in
this case, is in reference to its loss (death); liberty, to its loss (imprisonment);
and property, to its loss (destruction or forfeiture). These are rights
because they are guaranteed to us as things not to be lost or taken at
the whim of the government, but only if deemed necessary through the due
processes of our laws (ie, the death penalty or imprisonment for
felonies committed). They are not things which are to be given to every and
nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal
liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th
amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress".
In order to claim a civil right, one must have a legal or constitutional
basis for the claim. Both legal and constitutional civil rights are
protected through Acts and Amendments, passed by Congress or ratified by
the States, as has been deemed appropriate throughout history. There is
no sense in claiming a right that does not exist, and as a civil
right, there should be no comparison made between SSM and the subject.
Marriage is therefore not a right because it is not written into our
laws as one. If one were to examine the 13th Amendment one would note
the absence of the word 'marriage'. The same can be said for the 14th
Amendment. The 13th addresses the issues of slavery and indentured
servitude. The 14th Amendment directs that States shall not "deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Life, in
this case, is in reference to its loss (death); liberty, to its loss (imprisonment);
and property, to its loss (destruction or forfeiture). These are rights
because they are guaranteed to us as things not to be lost or taken at
the whim of the government, but only if deemed necessary through the due
processes of our laws (ie, the death penalty or imprisonment for
felonies committed). They are not things which are to be given to every and
anyone, at every and anytime. The key idea in the Amendment's sentence is the
relationship between the individual and what cannot be taken away by governing
forces. Legalized homosexual marriage cannot be taken away by the government
because the people never had it in the first place.
If one were to examine the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1964, and 1991 one
would note that the term marriage is once again clearly absent; indeed,
the Acts cover issues of employment and discrimination against citizens
on four grounds: race, gender, religion, and national origin. Sexual
orientation is absent. Nowhere in any of the Acts is the concept of
marriage mentioned as a right, fundamental or civil, nor is sexual orientation
If one were to examine the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1964, and 1991 one
would note that the term marriage is once again clearly absent; indeed,
the Acts cover issues of employment and discrimination against citizens
on four grounds: race, gender, religion, and national origin. Sexual
orientation is absent. Nowhere in any of the Acts is the concept of
marriage mentioned as a right, fundamental or civil, nor is sexual orientation
mentioned as a factor to limit discrimination.
How can someone claim that the absence of gay marriage is a violation of his or her civil rights?
How can someone claim that the absence of gay marriage is a violation of his or her civil rights?
Comparing the "right" of marriage to black civil rights is akin to
comparing apples and orangutans. They are fundamentally different. Some
even liken the current struggle for SSM rights to the civil rights
struggle that took place in the 1950s and 1960s.
Such a comparison is not only arrogant, but is completely misguided.
When Messrs. Blair, McNeal, Richmond, and McCain
approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in
Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, they all sought something to eat. They
simply wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the
same terms - the exact same food at the exact same counter at the
approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in
Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, they all sought something to eat. They
simply wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the
same terms - the exact same food at the exact same counter at the
exact same price. If the SSM movement were truly like the black movement,
it would want what any heterosexual would want, and on precisely the same terms-
the same marriage, at the same altar, at the same price. SSM does not want the
same thing as heterosexual marriage though. It wants something different.
It wants a different type of marriage that recognizes a different
coupling of people. Those rights pioneers of the sit-in and the others
that followed were not demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their
food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. There was no
attempt to redefine anything at that lunch counter. The four men were
striving to be included in a club (restaurant patrons) that they were
excluded from because of their melanin levels, not to change the rules
of the club (marriage) in order to suit their sexual preferences. As
history is to show, the rest of the Civil Rights Movement was conducted
to regain rights granted to black men and women that were
constitutionally guaranteed to them in the late 1800s and subsequently
It wants a different type of marriage that recognizes a different
coupling of people. Those rights pioneers of the sit-in and the others
that followed were not demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their
food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. There was no
attempt to redefine anything at that lunch counter. The four men were
striving to be included in a club (restaurant patrons) that they were
excluded from because of their melanin levels, not to change the rules
of the club (marriage) in order to suit their sexual preferences. As
history is to show, the rest of the Civil Rights Movement was conducted
to regain rights granted to black men and women that were
constitutionally guaranteed to them in the late 1800s and subsequently
denied by society to the middle of the 20th century. To restore the 14th
Amendment to its original purpose, to recreate the Civil Rights Act, to
return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -
those were the great causes of the Civil Rights Movement. Homosexual
equality in marriage has not been constitutionally guaranteed to, nor
has society taken it away from, the gay community.
Homosexual preference has been likened by advocates of SSM to race,
gender, and religion as conditions that should be exempt from every form
of discrimination. Many pro-gay activists have complained that they are
tired of being treated like second-class citizens because they are not
allowed to marry on their terms. This is an egregious misconception.
Homosexuals are not in danger of the same discrimination that blacks
were in the 1960s. They are not beaten by police officers in our
streets. They are not attacked by trained dogs, nor are they assaulted
with water from a fire hose. They are not lynched. They are not forced
to drink from rusty pipes next to a straight man's water fountain.
They are not forced to give way to the heterosexuals and take their seat
in the back of the bus. Homosexuals enjoy the same opportunities in the private
work force that heterosexuals do, and are accepted to the extent in mainstream
society as much as a minority group can be. One is hard pressed to not see a
television show with an openly gay character, enter a book store without
openly homosexual literature, or find openly homosexual services,
organizations, and establishments advertised in the city's newspaper. Walk
Amendment to its original purpose, to recreate the Civil Rights Act, to
return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -
those were the great causes of the Civil Rights Movement. Homosexual
equality in marriage has not been constitutionally guaranteed to, nor
has society taken it away from, the gay community.
Homosexual preference has been likened by advocates of SSM to race,
gender, and religion as conditions that should be exempt from every form
of discrimination. Many pro-gay activists have complained that they are
tired of being treated like second-class citizens because they are not
allowed to marry on their terms. This is an egregious misconception.
Homosexuals are not in danger of the same discrimination that blacks
were in the 1960s. They are not beaten by police officers in our
streets. They are not attacked by trained dogs, nor are they assaulted
with water from a fire hose. They are not lynched. They are not forced
to drink from rusty pipes next to a straight man's water fountain.
They are not forced to give way to the heterosexuals and take their seat
in the back of the bus. Homosexuals enjoy the same opportunities in the private
work force that heterosexuals do, and are accepted to the extent in mainstream
society as much as a minority group can be. One is hard pressed to not see a
television show with an openly gay character, enter a book store without
openly homosexual literature, or find openly homosexual services,
organizations, and establishments advertised in the city's newspaper. Walk
down the street in any large city and you'll find gay clubs and gay couples.
There is absolutely zero grounds for comparison between homosexuals today
and blacks in 1950.
If being allowed to marry any person of any gender one chooses is the
litmus test for second-class citizenry, then homosexuals are indeed
second class citizens. Homosexual rights to marriage have never been
guaranteed to anyone by our government in any form at any time; the
claim that the absence of gay marriage dooms homosexuals to second-class
litmus test for second-class citizenry, then homosexuals are indeed
second class citizens. Homosexual rights to marriage have never been
guaranteed to anyone by our government in any form at any time; the
claim that the absence of gay marriage dooms homosexuals to second-class
citizenry is baseless and arrogant.
Proponents for SSM have, and will, quote Zablocki v. Redhail as proof of
the legitimacy for their argument that marriage is a fundamental right.
I submit that the intention of the Court was not to redefine or expand
upon the definition of marriage (as it stood in 1977), for if so they
would have explicitly said so, but rather to show Americans that
marriage as it stands is something everyone has the right to pursue. The
Court did defend the privacy marriage as a right not to be intruded upon
by the government, as it had in Griswold v. Connecticut, but marriage as
it was defined when the rulings were passed. There was no intent to set
precedent to redefine marriage or allow it to be defined as anything
more than a legally recognized heterosexual union.
Kristin Perry, plaintiff in the case against Proposition 8 (Perry v.
Schwarzenegger), testified in the opening week of the trial that "The
state isn't letting us be happy". This is not a solid ground to argue
that civil rights are being denied, for no American has the guaranteed
right to be happy. It is the pursuit of happiness that is guaranteed,
for we are all free to engage in pursuit, but is not guaranteed that we
will achieve happiness. As Mr. Irving Kristol noted, "Democracy does not
guarantee equality of conditions- it only guarantees equality of
opportunity". SSM advocates have the right to an opportunity, an
opportunity pursue the success of their agenda, but they are not
entitled the right to have it succeed.
Proponents for SSM have, and will, quote Zablocki v. Redhail as proof of
the legitimacy for their argument that marriage is a fundamental right.
I submit that the intention of the Court was not to redefine or expand
upon the definition of marriage (as it stood in 1977), for if so they
would have explicitly said so, but rather to show Americans that
marriage as it stands is something everyone has the right to pursue. The
Court did defend the privacy marriage as a right not to be intruded upon
by the government, as it had in Griswold v. Connecticut, but marriage as
it was defined when the rulings were passed. There was no intent to set
precedent to redefine marriage or allow it to be defined as anything
more than a legally recognized heterosexual union.
Kristin Perry, plaintiff in the case against Proposition 8 (Perry v.
Schwarzenegger), testified in the opening week of the trial that "The
state isn't letting us be happy". This is not a solid ground to argue
that civil rights are being denied, for no American has the guaranteed
right to be happy. It is the pursuit of happiness that is guaranteed,
for we are all free to engage in pursuit, but is not guaranteed that we
will achieve happiness. As Mr. Irving Kristol noted, "Democracy does not
guarantee equality of conditions- it only guarantees equality of
opportunity". SSM advocates have the right to an opportunity, an
opportunity pursue the success of their agenda, but they are not
entitled the right to have it succeed.
"To Prevent SSM is to Allow Unacceptable Discrimination"
Those in favor of SSM will advocate its legalization on the basis that
not to do so would be discriminatory. They are correct. However, before
you assume concessions will be made, I submit that marriage is already a
discriminatory institution for reasons that are not related to sexual
preference. A man is not free to marry his niece, nor can he marry his
first cousin- regardless of gender. A woman is not free to marry a man
in prison, nor may she marry a 14 year old boy. Someone who is single is
by no means free to marry someone already married, someone who is
incapacitated, as in a coma, or someone who is mentally retarded.
If marriage is at present a discriminating institute, the type of
discrimination against those who wish to participate in SSM must be
defined. I submit that it is discrimination based not on sexual
preference but on gender. Because such discrimination is not in relation
to employment or loss of specific rights guaranteed by the law, it does
not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1991 or any Amendment.
If discrimination against SSM is indeed discrimination based on gender,
it must then be asked if such discrimination is lawful. Indeed it is.
The Supreme Court's decision in Rostker v. Goldberg held that it is
lawful to discriminate based on gender because doing so did not violate
the due process clause of the 5th Amendment . Marriage, as it stands,
has no relation to the concept of due process. The intent of the ruling
was not in conjunction with marital issues, it is true; however, because
the court uses prior rulings as instructions, guidelines, and even a
form of "law through opinion", it can be argued that the decision to
support discrimination based on gender can be applied to other
situations.
Discrimination based on gender is acceptable in a multitude of areas,
especially concerning public or state run services. A man is not allowed
to use a women's public bathroom; men and women are screened by their
respective genders when private inspections are required for airport
security; men and women are segregated by gender when incarcerated, both
federally and locally; men and women are not allowed to room or board
together at military colleges (see West Point, Annapolis, USAFA, VMI
etc) and military barracks; and, as show in Rostker, men and women are
treated discriminately, based on gender, with requirements for draft
registration.
Marriage, then, does discriminate against homosexuals. What it does not
do is discriminate against them because they are homosexual; their
gender, not their mental preferences, is the target of discrimination. A
homosexual man is indeed free to marry; but he is free to marry a woman,
just as any other man is. What he is not free to do is marry another man
because he himself is a man. This, by definition and form, is
discrimination based on gender. The man is not shunned, denied
employment, or jailed for his orientation, for he may do whatever he
pleases with another man behind the privacy of closed bedroom doors. He
is simply denied marriage to another man because he is not a woman. As
previously explained, marriage is allowed to discriminate against
male-female couples on the basis of sanguinity, criminality, legality,
numbers, and mental fortitude. No advocate for SSM I have met yet has
refuted or argued against any of these reasons for discrimination. Thus,
since the highest court in the land has ruled that it is acceptable to
discriminate on the basis of gender in some cases, I argue that gender
discrimination is legally allowed to assume rank and file with other
marriage discriminations. By its longstanding and current American
definition marriage is an example of a case where discrimination is
accepted.
"SSM Is Needed to Protect Minorities"
When the above two arguments fail, an advocate of SSM will often resort
to the minority defense. The strength of such an argument is fortified
by the belief that the majority has no right to "rule" a minority, and
the "rights" of the minority should be protected from tyranny by the
judicial system. The "rights of the minority" belief gives explanation
to the plaintiff's argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger; Ms. Perry, a
member of the minority- for SSM advocates and homosexuals are indeed the
minority- must have her rights protected by the courts regardless of
what the majority says, votes, or does. I find this argument frustrating
and cowardly, for it is not only flawed by hypocritical.
In 1996, the Congress passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (FDMA),
and the Executive signed the legislation into law. The Court did not comment
on the legislation. Such legislation defines marriage in the eyes of the federal
It also grants the following provision to States:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship"
This is not merely a statement of the opinion of the federal government,
but an actual law, essentially leaving the final decision on the subject to
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship"
This is not merely a statement of the opinion of the federal government,
but an actual law, essentially leaving the final decision on the subject to
the discretion of the States. The FDMA does two things:
first, it clarifies the federal government's position on the issue, and
second, it gives the States the ability to not recognize the actions of
another State regarding the issue. This decentralizes legal
responsibility for accepting SSM and allows any State to decide on the
issue for itself. Such a provision is clearly and plainly constitutional
as it follows the guidance of the 10th Amendment: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people". Because the definition of marriage is not mentioned anywhere in
the Constitution, it is therefore not a power delegated to the federal
government and is reserved for the States and their people. This does
not, however, mean that the FDMA is invalid, for it is indeed acceptable
and even necessary for the federal government to have an opinion on
the issue.
This is the point where the concept of majority is shunned by advocates
of SSM, but not where it must be disregarded. In order for SSM to be
outlawed in a State, it must be made so by either legislative or popular
vote. In order for SSM to be outlawed, the decision must come from a
majority of either legislative or popular voters. If SSM is outlawed in
a State, it must be because those whose power it is to vote have made it so.
As of now, only six states (Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Iowa)
have legalized SSM. New Jersey and Washington have not legalized SSM,
but grants similar rights to homosexual couples. New York, New Mexico,
and Rhode Island are indifferent. All other states, 40 in total , have
either statues or constitutional amendments not recognizing SSM. That
means 80% of States in the Union, a clear majority, have
given the vote to either the people or their duly appointed legislators
and have decided not to legalize SSM.
If one were to mention this statistic to an advocate of SSM, he or she
would hear a disgusted claim to repression by a tyranny of the majority
and an explanation that such tyranny of majority exists because a
majority of the people does not approve a right for the minority. As
previously mentioned marriage is not a right- nor is the redefinition of
marriage a right for the minority to exercise.
first, it clarifies the federal government's position on the issue, and
second, it gives the States the ability to not recognize the actions of
another State regarding the issue. This decentralizes legal
responsibility for accepting SSM and allows any State to decide on the
issue for itself. Such a provision is clearly and plainly constitutional
as it follows the guidance of the 10th Amendment: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people". Because the definition of marriage is not mentioned anywhere in
the Constitution, it is therefore not a power delegated to the federal
government and is reserved for the States and their people. This does
not, however, mean that the FDMA is invalid, for it is indeed acceptable
and even necessary for the federal government to have an opinion on
the issue.
This is the point where the concept of majority is shunned by advocates
of SSM, but not where it must be disregarded. In order for SSM to be
outlawed in a State, it must be made so by either legislative or popular
vote. In order for SSM to be outlawed, the decision must come from a
majority of either legislative or popular voters. If SSM is outlawed in
a State, it must be because those whose power it is to vote have made it so.
As of now, only six states (Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Iowa)
have legalized SSM. New Jersey and Washington have not legalized SSM,
but grants similar rights to homosexual couples. New York, New Mexico,
and Rhode Island are indifferent. All other states, 40 in total , have
either statues or constitutional amendments not recognizing SSM. That
means 80% of States in the Union, a clear majority, have
given the vote to either the people or their duly appointed legislators
and have decided not to legalize SSM.
If one were to mention this statistic to an advocate of SSM, he or she
would hear a disgusted claim to repression by a tyranny of the majority
and an explanation that such tyranny of majority exists because a
majority of the people does not approve a right for the minority. As
previously mentioned marriage is not a right- nor is the redefinition of
marriage a right for the minority to exercise.
How, then, would one define tyranny?
If every instance where the minority (be it a single
individual or a group) disagrees with the opinion of the majority it can
be called tyranny, then you have the tyranny of the minority; or, the
will of the minority imposed on the majority. This is what is happening
in California. A minority, dissatisfied with the voted opinion of the
majority, is attempting to circumvent the issue and seek recompense
through judicial fiat. The minority is attempting to find a favorable
judicial ruling in order to show that their interest is more important than
be called tyranny, then you have the tyranny of the minority; or, the
will of the minority imposed on the majority. This is what is happening
in California. A minority, dissatisfied with the voted opinion of the
majority, is attempting to circumvent the issue and seek recompense
through judicial fiat. The minority is attempting to find a favorable
judicial ruling in order to show that their interest is more important than
the legally and properly voiced will of the majority.
James Madison, in Federalist 58, said:
James Madison, in Federalist 58, said:
"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new
laws to be passed or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental
principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer
the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority...
a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions and the ruin of popular
governments."
governments."
Even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a progressive
and a socialist Democrat, said in an address at Roanoke, NC, August 18,
1937 that "majority rule must be preserved as the safeguard of both liberty
and civilization". It is voice of the majority that makes the laws of
our country, be it local or federal, not the opinion of the minority. It
is said that we are not a true Democracy, and that mob rule is not
acceptable in our nation. This is correct; America is not a true Democracy.
What we are is a constitutional Republic. Such a Republic, per Merriam-Webster,
is "led by a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote". The will of such a body, through majority
decision, becomes the law of the Republic.
We, as Americans, would not have endured to the length that we have had
we not respected the voice of the majority so long as our legislators,
our executives, and our judges found that such a voice was not illegal,
immoral, or inhuman. Denying SSM is not immoral, as morality constitutes
the bulk of most arguments on the subject- both for and against. Denying SSM
is not inhuman, as it does not degrade the humanity of homosexuals (see
previous section). Denying SSM is not illegal, as there are no laws
making it so, and the decision of legality is left to the individual
opinions of the States.
and a socialist Democrat, said in an address at Roanoke, NC, August 18,
1937 that "majority rule must be preserved as the safeguard of both liberty
and civilization". It is voice of the majority that makes the laws of
our country, be it local or federal, not the opinion of the minority. It
is said that we are not a true Democracy, and that mob rule is not
acceptable in our nation. This is correct; America is not a true Democracy.
What we are is a constitutional Republic. Such a Republic, per Merriam-Webster,
is "led by a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote". The will of such a body, through majority
decision, becomes the law of the Republic.
We, as Americans, would not have endured to the length that we have had
we not respected the voice of the majority so long as our legislators,
our executives, and our judges found that such a voice was not illegal,
immoral, or inhuman. Denying SSM is not immoral, as morality constitutes
the bulk of most arguments on the subject- both for and against. Denying SSM
is not inhuman, as it does not degrade the humanity of homosexuals (see
previous section). Denying SSM is not illegal, as there are no laws
making it so, and the decision of legality is left to the individual
opinions of the States.
Conclusions
The bulk of the preceding argument can be made summarily in three
points. First, that marriage is not a right, nor is it a civil right, as
it is not guaranteed by any Amendment or Act that defines rights
guaranteed Americans. Second, that to not legalize SSM is
discriminatory, but discriminatory in a manner that the highest court in
the land has found acceptable Third, that were the first two points to be
overlooked, the final decision is in the hands of the States and the voters
therein. It is not for any minority to tell a majority whether or not its voice
is valid, but for the voice of the majority to be the deciding factor on issues.
Such a condition that allows the minority to dictate the outcome of an
issue would certainly lead to a tyranny- but a tyranny of the few over
the many.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is an example of hypocrisy and manipulation by
the advocates of SSM, not their opponents. The advocates of SSM, having
been granted their right to pursue the defeat of Proposition 8 through
legal means (the ballot box), have found their loss through due process
(under California law) to be unsatisfactory and have decided to
circumvent the people's authority and seek a decision tailored to their
liking through judicial fiat. A ruling in their favor would in essence
be telling the people of California that due process is to be
disregarded, their opinion does not matter, their beliefs are
irrelevant, their votes have no effect, and it is the opinion of the
minority that is to be valued and validated over the decision of the
majority.
What, Then, to Do?
Can SSM be made legal? The answer is yes. The caveat to this is that it
can only be made legal if the proper legislation is passed at the proper levels.
In order to accomplish this, a majority of voters (be they individuals, representatives,
or States) must decide that they want SSM to be legalized.
The current strategy to legalize it, involving the manipulation
of definitions, demonizing opponents, and seeking judicial sympathy, is
incorrect and deserves to fail on its own merit. What should be done to
legalize SSM is to make it law; not "law" stemming from a court's
opinion, but law coming from majority decision. Should the decision
be made by the federal legislature to keep the issue on the level of the
States, SSM must be made legal in the correct manner in each State
according to the laws of that State. No State must be made to accept
something against the wish of a majority of its residents. If, however,
nothing less than nationwide acceptance is desired by the gay community,
then SSM must be made legal through federal law. This requires, as
previously stated, a majority. SSM advocates must convince a majority of
the Congress to pass appropriate legislation specifically saying that
SSM is to be made legal. If federal legislation is not a solid enough
guarantee, then a constitutional amendment would be in order- again,
requiring the majority of the States (something the SSM movement clearly
does not have right now) to ratify such an amendment.
If the SSM movement truly wishes to liken its efforts to those of the
Civil Rights Movement, then the outcome they seek should be acceptance
of SSM written, endorsed, and enforced by the federal government in such
a manner that civil rights were. If the gay community seeks acceptance
by the States instead, then they must obey the decision of those States.
Both sides of the proverbial fence must wait and see how the course of history unfolds.
incorrect and deserves to fail on its own merit. What should be done to
legalize SSM is to make it law; not "law" stemming from a court's
opinion, but law coming from majority decision. Should the decision
be made by the federal legislature to keep the issue on the level of the
States, SSM must be made legal in the correct manner in each State
according to the laws of that State. No State must be made to accept
something against the wish of a majority of its residents. If, however,
nothing less than nationwide acceptance is desired by the gay community,
then SSM must be made legal through federal law. This requires, as
previously stated, a majority. SSM advocates must convince a majority of
the Congress to pass appropriate legislation specifically saying that
SSM is to be made legal. If federal legislation is not a solid enough
guarantee, then a constitutional amendment would be in order- again,
requiring the majority of the States (something the SSM movement clearly
does not have right now) to ratify such an amendment.
If the SSM movement truly wishes to liken its efforts to those of the
Civil Rights Movement, then the outcome they seek should be acceptance
of SSM written, endorsed, and enforced by the federal government in such
a manner that civil rights were. If the gay community seeks acceptance
by the States instead, then they must obey the decision of those States.
Both sides of the proverbial fence must wait and see how the course of history unfolds.
Future generations of voters have the potential to warm to the tenets of SSM and may
vote to overturn bans and statues barring such a change in marriage. Conversely, future
generations may become more protective of the current definition of marriage and may
choose to overturn amendments and statues that have thus far legalized or recognized SSM.
If one were to tell a room full of British historians in 1920 that exactly two decades later
Luftwaffe bombers would be bombing London block by block, he would be laughed out of the room.
We cannot predict the future.
Neither side can make an accurate or assertive claim to how the issue will be resolved.
Neither side can make an accurate or assertive claim to how the issue will be resolved.
What is known, and what must be affirmed, is that the issue is in the hands of the people
and the majority of the people do not wish to accept SSM, for whatever their reason may be.
Should SSM be legalized, it would need to be done in a manner both legal and fair;
Congressional legislation, Executive approval, Court support, and State sponsorship- each
of which require a majority in some form or fashion. As it stands, no single category has
completely embraced SSM. That decision must be upheld and respected until such people
see fit to overturn it.
If Maine and California had voted to legalize SSM, the gay community would be telling
their opponents to accept the decision because it is the true will of the people. Why should the
same not be said when those people choose to define marriage as one man and one woman?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)