FreeThought Fort Wayne

        Be Reasonable

Posts Tagged ‘racism’

I now pronounce you chuck and larry

Posted by dystressed on June 15, 2008

There’s a lot of talk lately about gay marriage. I find marriage kind of an interesting topic, mainly because as a kid I never thought I’d be able to marry the man of my dreams, seeing how I was and still am a man. Yep, that makes yours truly a gay.

I have been politically active and active in the local gay community, but I’ve never been too sure about the gay movement. As I get older, I realize that there is something to this whole equality thing. Marriage has been a main goal of the gay groups for decades, and I’ve come to agree that it is a worthwhile cause.

In school, I learned all about the role religion plays in civil rights, specifically the 60s civil rights movement. Because religion is such an ingrained thing, both sides were using it to further their platforms on either side of the argument. Historians have pretty much concluded that African Americans and their advocates would not have been as successful if they hadn’t successfully engineered more rational and scriptural stances for their cause.

That’s what is strange about the gay movement. Along with the Women’s movement, the Bible specifically (depending on your interpretation of course) condemns gays and subjugates women to their husbands. The vague references against blacks (i.e. the ‘curse of Ham’) were abandoned because they were so faulty.

Though religion may have been one of the most or the most successful tactic of the civil rights movement, women and gays aren’t really able to use the same arguments without throwing out the parts that denigrate them.

Gays owe a lot to the sciences and skeptical thought. It was the APA who finally removed homosexuality from the DSM4 list of mental disorders: people thinking critically and challenging long-standing notions and fears. Other research continues to break down barriers for gays.

Sexism, Racism and Homophobia are still largely practiced openly thanks to the patriarchal religious systems to which the world still clings.

I would argue that women’s and gay rights movements could benefit from aligning themselves more assertively with freethought and skepticism. I found a great link that seems to agree with me.

First of all, the institution of marriage is largely based in religion. The problem is that the religious people irrevocobaly tied marriage to state licensing centuries ago, which clearly contradicts the modern secularist notion of separation of church and state.

The problem with many religious people is that they believe homosexuality is a sin, and sin cannot be love. Marriage is the ultimate social, public expression of love, so why should two sinners be allowed to express their sin? It is more offensive because society welcomes marriage. Society is largely based on it, both with traditional families and because marriages are essentially partnerships that create a more productive population. Marriages create stability on all fronts, economically, socially, politically, and emotionally.

I think civil unions are a great alternative in the battle for equality, because they are based on the legal benefits of marriage. They take away all of the religious overtones that are ingrained in the word “marriage” and replace it with a simple, legalese term for the bond that two people share.

But then, that’s the problem. It goes back to a matter of semantics. The state should not simply have the power to write-off homosexual couples with a politically correct term. The state should recognize that love between any two people, regardless of the sexes, should be allowed to be recognized with a marriage.

Equal marriage should be allowed because it is the best system our society has for maintaining stability. Equal marriage should also be allowed because there is simply no reason for religion to have a monopoly on the term.

Advertisements

Posted in FreeThought, Humor, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Ben Stein and The Descent of Man = quote mining

Posted by Andy D. on April 28, 2008

I am preparing some slides for The Enlightenment Show which we are shooting next Sunday. Mark and I saw the movie on Sat. There were about ten folks in the theater, (noon showing). I will talk on the whole movie later but first everyone should see this. (Steve Mirskey and John Rennie at Scientific American first pointed this out) I think it is easier to see in the two pics below.

In the first slide, I am showing Ben Stein’s voiceover as he was walking to Holocaust sites. Ben states the quote and then reveals the vile author as CHARLES DARWIN before going into the horror areas. (He doesn’t reveal the source as The Descent of Man perhaps in hope that we won’t look it up?) The quote is surprisingly missing a lot of information. In a way, I think Ben is practicing in his own form of Holocaust denial. He won’t look at the racism for what it was and instead he turns on science. Ben is an economist and he went to Yale so surely his scholarship would be excellent? Either he is a complete fraud or he is incompetent by blindly relying on his ideological producers and not checking their sources. The very next sentence and paragraph says the exact opposite of what they are trying to imply! Darwin thought it would be overwhelmingly evil to unprotect the weak and it would be against our most noblest nature! Stein and fellows are fraudulent and are praticising propanda not that unlike the Nazis… Shame on you Stein. (This is available on http://darwin-online.org.uk/ Search for asylums) Click on the pictures to enlarge them. I added the formatting to show what Ben cut.

BTW: None of this says anything about science or gives any credibility to intelligent design. It does show what a great thinker Charles Darwin was….

This is from Jacob Bronowski – The Ascent of Man. Science is admitting we don’t know everything and is anti-dogmatic by being grounded in evidence. I saw this on PZ Meyer’s Blog.

Posted in Religion, Skepticism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »