Posts Tagged religious supremacy

Your Garbage Anti-Choice Supreme Court

Looks like it will be, once again, up to some old, male asshole, this time in the form of Justices Anthony Kennedy as well as Roberts, to decide what rights as pertaining to reproductive choices and bodily autonomy, women should be granted.

Justice Kennedy believes that the government’s case would basically “force corporations to pay for abortions” – making many believe that Kennedy’s belief that this is an abortion case was an indicator that the Supreme Court was going to side with Hobby Lobby and other plaintiffs. Kennedy has not cast a pro-choice vote in 22 years and is not likely to change his position this time.

It is interesting to note that Hobby Lobby objects to four forms of contraception on the mistaken ground that these contraceptive methods are actually forms of abortion — a brief filed by numerous medical organizations explains that they are not (not that even if they were, it should matter)

Roberts, however, suggested that someone’s mere belief that something is an abortion is enough to trigger a religious exemption to federal law.

Let me repeat what you just read:

Justice Roberts suggests that someone’s mere belief that something is an abortion is enough to trigger a religious exemption to federal law.

Beautiful. Now we are at a point where the highest court of the land and its Justices state that someone’s “mere belief” – absent any factual evidence – “is enough to trigger a religious exemption.”

When a Chief Justice is advocating for superstition in the from of religious belief to write the law of the land as opposed to facts, then we are in far more trouble than I had even imagined we could be. For such a notion to hold sway in a court of law is profoundly disturbing.

How can someone make a legal decision based on what someone “believes”?

If this goes through, you will have corporations filing for religious exemption on any and all laws they can find to pretty much discriminate against anyone they want – as long as they say they “believe” it, of course.

See, your Honor, playing the piano causes abortions, even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting this, so I want to be able to ban my employees from playing the piano on their off time.”

See, you Honor, paying minimum wage violates my religious beliefs (and just take my word for it that it does, good sir), so I really don’t think I should have to pay abide by minimum wage laws.”

“See, you Honor, hiring blacks violates my religious beliefs (and just take my word for it that it does, good sir), so I really don’t think I should have to hire them.” 

“See, you Honor, having a black person sit at my lunch counter violates my religious beliefs (and just take my word for it that it does, good sir), so I really don’t think I should have to let them sit at the lunch counter of my restaurant.” 

Etc., etc. etc.

The SCOTUS is going to ensure that the “Slippery Slope/Hobby Lobby Act of 2014” passes, ensuring all employers that worship flying spaghetti monsters in the clouds and who believe that said flying spaghetti monsters who prohibit them from paying for any and all medical coverage because of “religious conscience” will be legally allowed to do so. Have cancer or heart disease? Too bad because your employer believes that prayer and herbal tea cures these things.

This is religious supremacy.

Now we are at a juncture in our history where those writing the highest law of the land (and not, as one would think, some “extremist religious nut jobs” – a strawman a lot of god and religion apologizers like to use as ostensible “proof” that religion is misunderstood because, allegedly, only a few on the fringe are like that, not everyone. Uh.huh)  really think that a person’s mere belief in something, regardless of the facts, was grounds for legally discriminating against another group in the grossest and most transgressive way possible.

See how religion and god have managed to stick and lodge their rancid, oppressive tentacles into the very fabric of society to the point where lawmakers assert that mere belief in something, whether based in reality or not, was enough to enact a law based on such a belief?

These are not the principles that this nation was founded on and making laws respecting establishments of religion or religious belief does not only go against the First Amendment but makes us a mere theocracy.

I find it frightening to think that in this day and age, and when presented with  the scientific fact that birth control is not abortion, people who “feel” that it is, can get their way and thus get to make decisions that affect millions – all over how they feel.

Religion really is a disease. Always interjecting, always fucking it up for everyone else and no one is allowed to talk about it openly because doing so is “rude” and non-PC.

It’s a good thing that with all these righteous, pious men who are only doing god’s work blah blah fart,  it is atheists who are the least trusted entities in the country, aside from rapists, that is.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Your Right To Religion Does Not Supersede Someone Else’s Right to Equality

gay 1-1It is amazing, and with that I mean appallingly frightening, to watch the mental gymnastics religious people will go through to justify bigotry and hate and the extent to which they are willing to hide behind the Bible to justify their narrow-mindedness and intolerance.

The hatred and bigotry of religious people these days, among a myriad of other things, appears to be particularly focused on gays and lesbians and doing everything possible to humiliate and degrade them, including denying them their basic human and civil rights, and defending such thinly veiled bigotry, by making appeals to “traditional values”, “god” and other nice-sounding and “wholesome” terms.

It is a tragic testament to the state of affairs that gays and lesbians are being scapegoated when in reality those who have done, and continue to do, the most harm to society and its people are not gays and lesbians, but heterosexual, most notably religious, men (women too, but I say men because our political landscape  – from Congress to state governments – as well as the business sphere are predominately populated by men). Which is not to say that a person’s gender identity and sexual orientation should be used to pass judgement on their character and actions. It is merely to point out that if you are going to blame someone for the shit we’re in, maybe you may want to rethink whether someone’s sexual origination should be relevant in answering that question. And if it is not, then you should ask yourself why you think being gay or lesbian, and thus someone’s queerness, could somehow lead to the breakdown of society.

The sad thing, of course, is that even self proclaimed “reasonable” religious folks believe that at the end of the day it is ok, acceptable and understandable to deny gays and lesbians equal rights, or to at least curtail those, such as a same-sex couple should have to undergo more stringent scrutiny when trying to adopt and so forth.  And the thing is, such people don’t even feel bad about. On the contrary, they make such claims with a good conscience and they sleep well at night, too. No compunction.

One such individual is Mark David Hall, a “traditional, orthodox Christian” who  believes that “God designed marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman.”

Hall is this week’s guest columnist at Oregon Live. Hall, who undoubtedly must have Jesus as his role model, and I can see that just by looking at all the love, caring and acceptance that is so shining through in his column, just like Jesus would do, defends the “right” (ahem) of religious people to deny services to discriminate against anyone mainly gays and lesbians and deny them services of any kind, especially when serving gays and lesbians constitutes “endorsing a practice” (homosexuality) that disagrees with the Christian’s beliefs hateful, ignorant notions. Although he personally would never to do it, as he assures us, Hall, nonetheless, fully supports business owners who want to be able to legally deny people services if they believe that rendering such a service would violate the tenets of their religion.

He believes that the “religious convictions of these individuals [who wish to discriminate] should be respected” because allegedly this country was founded  on “the conviction that men and women should be able to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Yeah, I don’t think so.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment separates church from state, explicitly saying that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That is all the protection and “right to religion” the  US Constitution provides. Full stop.

A place of business is a place of business. Baking a cake, serving food, selling furniture, AstroTurf, cars , clothes etc. are not exercise of one’s religion which would necessitate First Amendment protections.

What Hall is proposing is, therefore nothing but pure, cold, hard, unadulterated, not to mention legalized, discrimination.

The Demand For Legalized Discrimination

I am no legal expert but if the government, through laws and legislation, were to actually grant business owners the right, the legal right, to deny services to gays and lesbians (or any number and creed of people religious business owners do not like) if they felt that providing those services would violate their religious rights, then that would, in fact, constitute the government “respecting an establishment of religion”, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Now, I don’t feel inclined to get into a discussion about how under the umbrella of “religious beliefs” millions of people have been killed, oppressed, subjugated and otherwise harmed over the millennia and continue to be killed, oppressed, subjugated and otherwise harmed, but I will say that such a measure, if made into law, would be nothing more than a license to discriminate. A licence which a myriad of companies out there could potentially use to discriminate against a host of people they don’t like and/or whose life style choices and/or various other inherent attributes they do not agree with.

After all,  what if business owners decide that they do not want to sell to blacks and Muslims, atheists and women, red heads or people with tattoos? This is no different than having a black only section in your restaurant or a”White Only” lunch counter at the diner – only that in this case religion is used to accomplish the same, which is to deny certain people, whom religious people deem abnormal or unworthy, access.

And make no mistake about it, granting certain people rights while denying the same rights to others based on any attribute you do not like is discrimination.

Separate But Equal and the Jim Crow laws that enforced them were terribly unjust and discriminatory, not to mention that under Separate But Equal, there was, in fact, no equality for those who had to be separated, by law, from the rest of the (white) population that felt threatened by black emancipation.

The irony here, of course, is that under the umbrella of “religious freedom” such a law would mainly be utilized to deny services to gays and lesbians and only gays and lesbians. In fact, this appears to be directed at gays and lesbians only as there is rarely any talk about denying other entities that violate biblical laws (and we all know that they exist) services. They do call it religious freedom but that is only a scaffold beneath their bigotry.

Sweet Taste of Wickedness 

dish_cake.widea

SWEET TASTE OF WICKEDNESS: This cake purchased from Gresham’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa bears an important message

Last year, the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, told a lesbian couple that “we don’t do same-sex marriages.”

It is interesting to note that there is nothing there to indicate that Sweet Cakes by Melissa was denying to bake wedding cakes for other biblically non-approved actions, such as for couples for whom this is the second marriage (i.e. who have been divorced), for example, or inter-faith marriages. There is nothing in there about doing hymen inspections to sanction the validity of a heterosexual engagement before agreeing to bake a cake. In fact, the owner was more than happy to bake a cake for all people no questions asked but decided to throw the Good Book at her same-sex wedding customers, claiming that apparently in this instance, and in this instance only, her religious convictions were being violated.

Surely, if one were so obliged so as to deny people services because it disagrees with one’s religion, one would do so for all actions that violate religious doctrine.

See how religious/Christian supremacy works?  Religious people have put everyone on the defense, playing the victims whose rights are being allegedly neglected and stomped on. As the privileged, dominant entity they really believe that they are entitled to their privilege and dominance and that demands for equality infringe upon their rights to subjugate, discriminate, oppress and harm others. And they think they have that right, that entitlement, because it is in the name of god and religion.

This “right to discriminate” legislation which Hall supports with bells and whistles, is a hate filled piece of legislation directed at gays and lesbians only. This is not about right to religion. This is legislated hate under the guise of right to religion.

The  new name for bigotry these days seem to  be “religious freedom” which religious people have taken to mean that it should be upheld to the point where it should supersede and trump someone else’s human and civil rights.

* * *

Religion is harmful, in case you had not gotten that message from the eleventy million other examples and cases I have talked about and explored here.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Matthew McConaughey And the Delusion of Religious People

The ignorance and arrogance of religious people (and with that I usually mean “Christians” because I live in a country where Christianity is the predominant religion) never ceases to both amaze and repulse me.

I know the need to believe in a god and/or creator is a powerful one for a lot of people and often hard to resist; existential uncertainty can be terrifying and the idea of a daddy-figure who watches over you and takes care of you and makes it all ok – be it now or later in the “afterlife”  – is a powerful, reassuring and calming notion.

And isn’t that what religion ultimately is, an emotional pacifier enabling people to derive meaning from their otherwise seemingly arbitrary existence in an uncertain world at best and a tool to control, sway and subjugate the masses, at worst? As Karl Marx once said, religion is the opiate of the masses. It is “excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet [and what] keeps the poor from murdering the rich”  Napoleon once remarked.

So I get it, religion is useful for both those who have a seemingly innate need to believe and cannot fathom existence without a god and creator as well as for those who have understood how religion works and who subsequently have been exploiting that need to believe in order to push their own  – often sinister – agenda of control and subjugation in the name of god and holy entities.

So I certainly do understand the psychological need for religion and god but what I will never understand is how this need can be so strong that it subdues rationality, common sense and deductive reasoning leading to willful ignorance and right-out idiocy and callousness, which is so emblematic of religion and its followers.

matt mc C

God does seem to work in mysterious ways

Case in point, Matthew McConaughey and his best actor Oscar acceptance speech which he began by thanking and praising “god” for giving him “opportunities that are not of my hand or of any other human hand.” Religious conservatives cheered his acceptance speech as a brave strike against Hollywood’s pervasive secular bias, claiming that the Oscar crowd was “rattled” and “quieted” by McConaughey’s praise for the lord.

The truth of religion and god aside, it seems moronic, not to mention deeply arrogant and right out callous, for anyone to believe that an all powerful, benevolent supernatural being that allegedly created the entire universe with its billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and solar systems would care about the career and work of privileged thespians.

One would think “god” would have more important issues of life, death and suffering to contend with than being bothered about the career of athletes and Oscar trophies for millionaires.

Of course, when a non-religious person points out that these notions are facile at best and demeaning at worst, they risk being condemned as “strident,” “mean” and “haters” or at least disrespectful of religious sensibilities. However, since religious supremacy is the dominant paradigm in our society, and since atheists, according to a recent study done by a group of psychologists in the U.S. and Canada, are the least trusted of all listed categories aside from rapists, our society is skewed favorably towards religion and quite unfavorably towards critics of religion.

The emotional pull of our tribal identity almost always trumps our capacity to actually weigh the evidence, which is why facts, and deductive reasoning play such a tragically small role in everyday decision making by law-makers and the institutions of our society and thus are viewed with so much suspicion, leading to the kind of ignorant, blind, self-righteousness as exhibited by Matthew McConaughey and athletes in post-game interviews who seriously believe that it is absolutely plausible and reasonable to believe that an invisible deity who creates whole universes is also endlessly interested in their personal thoughts and successes and award-status.

Why is that a problem, you ask? Why not let McConaughey thank whomever and whatever he wants, be it god, trolls or hobbits? Because not criticizing ignorance to this extent and thus religious people, gives credence to their ignorant notions, aiding in their perpetuation with respect to all aspects of society and legislation. As long as we care more about catering to the religious and their sensibilities than we do about encouraging the open questioning of the claims of the faithful – claims that are, more often than not, detrimental, dehumanizing and harmful to people and society overall,  religious supremacy will continue fucking it up for the rest of us.

As Dante once said, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Comments