Is “Rev.” State Senator Diaz willing to violate his oath of office?

Ruben Diaz was quoted in the Christian Post as saying the following things:

“Pastors and religious leaders are supposed to remember that we are supposed to be Christians before being Democrats or being Republicans. Our responsibility is with Jesus and not with Democratic Party or Republican Party."

"We should always think first as Christians; we should not be concerned if that person is Republican or Democrat. We should be concerned if that person has Christian values and go all the way for that person."

Senator Diaz is in a special position, and is not just a pastor and religious leader, he is also a New York state senator. He took an oath of office that follows this format:

I [state your name] do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, and I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of New York State Senator according to the best of my ability [so help me God.]

When he wears his pastor hat, he should certainly feel free to act in accordance wioth the dictates of his personal religious beliefs (within reason, of course), but it may be argued that by putting his own particular and narrow religious views above the broad sweep of the federal and state constitutions when he is wearing his “state senator” hat, Diaz could be violating his oath of office.

That is not to say that his vote against the marriage equality bill or its additional religious protection amendment in and of itself violates the federal or state constitution. Indeed, the New York State Court of Appeals, in its 2006 decision that left the issue of marriage equality to the legislature, Hernandez v Robles (2006 NY Slip Op 05239), 855 NE 2d 1, 7 NY 3d 338, 821 NYS 2d 770 (2006) the New York Court of appeals expressly held that marriage on a gender-neutral basis was not required under the constitution of the State of New York or by the language of the existing statute.

But we have to note for the record, that even before the vote on the marriage equality bill and its additional religious protection amendment, out of state marriages have been understood to be recognized for all purposes under the law of the State of New York, when they are valid in the jurisdiction of origin. This is because they do not violate the express public policy of the State of New York, even if the marriage could not be performed in New York. Since New York had never passed a state-level Defense against Marriage Act, the Appellate Division in the 4th Department confirmed this on February 1, 2008, in Martinez v. County of Monroe (50 A.D.3d 189; 850 N.Y.S.2d 740).

However, it is the “Rev.” State Senator Diaz’s reasoning for his vote that makes me suspect that he would choose his religious bigotry over constitutional requirements.

It is interesting that Diaz ignores the express teachings of the Gospel in placing his religion first, over his constitutional obligations.

Jesus taught a basic separation of Church and State – see the synoptic gospels on “rendering to Caesar.” In all three, at Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25, we see that when confronted by a question as to the authority for a particular thing, whether it be secular or spiritual, the rules to follow ae those that go with the respective authority.  For religious marriage, by all means there is no problem with looking to one's own sacred scripture or the interpretation of it that one understands, but when dealing with the civil rights of the citizens of the state, one particular religious belief should not be the primary consideration to trump the civil rights of all the citizens.

If rendering to Caesar is not enough of a scriptural admonition, there is also the teaching “no man can serve two masters” that I find in two of the synoptic gospels, at Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. While Jesus is specifically referring to God and money, the spiritual and temporal authority are still intended to be separable - and when there is a conflict, and it is not possible to do justice to the one or the other in a proper circumstance, stepping down from the obligation that cannot be met would be proper.

Even when he identifies himself, the “Rev.” State Senator (or the State Senator “Rev.”), he can’t seem to avoid combining his titles and his allegiances – and yet, he readily and constantly admits putting his “Rev.” hat above his “State Senator” hat. When the time does come that he has a conflict between his oath of office and his religion, he will put his religion first, and he openly admits it in nearly everything he says on the subject. Should such a time come, if he does not resign his office and it can be established conclusively that he violated his oath of office, he could suffer consequences.

Since it would be really hard to prove his motivations if he did not keep yapping about them, Diaz should perhaps take some additional precedent from Jesus himself, and just stop telling everyone that he puts his religion ahead of the constitution and his oath of office. This way we can only guess that he might be violating his oath of office, but we wouldn't actually be able to pin it on him.

See, in particular Matthew 21:23-27.

In this passage, Jesus remains opaque about how he interprets his own source of authority for his teaching in the temple courts. When asked by the religious authorities to explain his authority, Jesus responds with a question about the source of John’s baptism, from divine or human authority – and when they refused to answer that, he also refused to answer them himself. Were Diaz silent about his motives, it would be impossible to prove whether they violate his oath of office.

It is one thing to for him to take his religious beliefs into consideration in deliberating how he should vote on the legislation placed before him – and it is quite another to set aside all other considerations other than his religious belief in formulating that vote.

Diaz can get away with putting his religion first if only he doesn’t advertise his reasoning so obviously. Otherwise he might find himself accused of violating his oath of office, and his own words would be found to incriminate and condemn him.

I am not suggesting that he be removed from office, only that he be somewhat more discreet about his motives and his parody of reasoning.

Of course, he does not even really understand Christian teachings about marriage – most Christianists don’t understand the true meaning of the Good News - they look to the miracles and things that require a suspension of disbelief, and not to the social justice message.

Let’s look briefly at two passages:

In Matthew 19:6, Jesus refers to traditional opposite sex marriage, in which the two become “one flesh.”

But in the one same-sex marriage referred to in the Bible, we get this, in 1 Samuel 18:3 (the link is to the KJV for this passage), that essentially, David and Jonathan are knit together as one soul by their covenant.

One flesh, and one soul - and as if the beating of a single heart. The two relationships are the same sort of thing in bible terms, as far as establishing a family relationship (the connubium aspect, even though a same sex couple’s relationship (or the relationship between opposite sex couples in which one partner is infertile or menopausal) does not naturally produce children?

Senator Diaz should seriously consider looking more carefully at both his beliefs and the obligations he has under the two or more hats he wears.  He does not seem to be able to reconcile his obligations to both his masters, the constitution and his (erroneous) version of God.

Responding to Archbishop Dolan on Marriage

With all the hoopla about marriage equality finally getting close to a vote in the New York State Senate, New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan writes (or rather, lies) in his blog about “The True Meaning of Marriage” as a last-ditch effort to try to stop the law from being enacted – and as has been typical and usual with Roman Catholic hierarchs in the United States, he advocates for moral injustice, using lies and misrepresentations as his methodology.
http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247

He commences his diatribe with:

“The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

Hmmm. “Redefine Marriage” is a stock phrase used by the opponents of the New York marriage bill. The impression is that marriage has lasted for thousands of years without change, and now some people want to “redefine” it so that men and women can’t marry each other.

The fact is that passing the marriage bill will not change a single thing about opposite-sex marriages and the families of people in opposite-sex marriages. Their marriages will not be redefined.

Not only that, but civil marriage gets “redefined” all the time. In ancient Rome, there were several different forms of marriage, and marriage has historically included various forms of polygamy, including both polygyny and (sometimes) polyandry. The Bible indicates that polygyny was one of the earlier forms of marriage – one husband with more than one wife. Indeed, even same-sex marriage was allowed, in some cases. In 1 Samuel 18:3 we see King Saul’s son Jonathan marrying the future King David, and then later in the chapter we see David also marryins Saul’s daughter Michal, thus becoming Saul’s “son-in-law a second time.” (See Darby or ASV, not the Vulgate or translations based on the Vulgate, because Jerome intentionally fudged the applicable verse). In Rome, the Emperor Nero, after killing his pregnant wife Poppaea, later married Sporus, a young man who resembled his dead wife.

In the early Christian Church, as Boswell points out, same-sex unions were actually blessed by Christians. (Indeed, in Christ Jesus, according to Paul, we are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”)


Also, according to Paul, marriage for Christians has nothing to do with procreation, but is for the sole purpose of allowing those with a strong libido an opportunity to have licit sex. See 1 Cor. 7:8-9.

But let’s look at the law as it evolved in New York – not an unchanging tradition spanning thousands of years – but a matter of civil law that has evolved over time.

After the English took over from the Dutch, New York was subject to the English common law, which developed over centuries. Marriage under the common law created a single legal person – “the two shall become one” – and then, as Blackstone (or Lord Coke) notes in a corollary, the married woman essentially suffers from a disability that is the equivalent of civil death for a prison inmate – “and that one is the husband.”

This was the barbaric traditional form of marriage for enough hundreds of years to be part of the common law that was the common law of New York State as well.

In 1836, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose started petitioning for a “Married Women’s Property Act” that would allow married women the right to inheritances – until then, being that “the two are one, and that one is the husband,” the husband had control of inheritances – and would often enough spend it on liquor in taverns while leaving his wife and children destitute.

The religious leaders of the day, like Archbishop Dolan, were appalled – to change the civil law relating to marriage would destroy the institution! And the state senate took 12 years, until 1848, to actually pass the law – and then only because some senators realized that the inheritances that should go to their daughters and grandchildren were likely to end up in a tavernkeeper’s hands if they did not pass the bill.

It took another twelve years to push a bill through the legislature in 1860 “redefining marriage” again, to allow working women the right to their own wages – until then, husbands had control over those as well, and they were just as likely to spend their wife’s wages on strong drink as they were to spend their inheritances.

So many other changes have been made in the years since 1848 and 1860 – “redefining” marriage again and again . . .and again.

So, what’s all the ruckus from Archbishop Dolan about this particular proposed change?

The answer is a combination of moral error and conflict in the Church’s catechism that leads to a nearly schizophrenic response whenever the idea of “gay” is broached.

Archbishop Dolan continues:

“The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don’t see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.”

Tamper? No. The arc of history bends toward justice, and the proposed amendment to make marriage laws gender-neutral is just, fair, and right. Tamperis a loaded word – improve would be better and more accurate.

As we have already noted, the “definition as old as human reason” is a fiction invented by Archbishop Dolan to cover his apparent ignorance of the fact that the definition of marriage has been amended many times in the past couple hundred years, and has changed over time as humanity has become more civilized.

Those “in defense of traditional marriage” should be honored to vote for the marriage bill – it makes no changes whatsoever to traditional marriage. All it does is expand the definition to include marriages that are gender neutral as well as those between opposite-sex individuals.

Dolan continues:

“But, really, shouldn’t we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?”

The archbishop apparently has little knowledge or understanding of civil law – and even of the law of his own Church. My own Roman Catholic marriage was ended by civil divorce more than 10 years ago (I didn’t start the proceedings), and then annulled by a Church tribunal of his diocese (though I admit it precedes his elevation to the archbishopric in New York). Is Dolan even aware that New York “tampered” with the whole “lifelong” thing a long time ago? That the grounds for civil divorce have changed many times, most recently when New York began allowing “no-fault” divorce? Isn’t he aware that his own Church’s Canon Law has changed many times with regard to marriage and annulment – with the most recent annulment rules being so liberalized that one prominent canon lawyer was quoted as stating that there was not a Catholic marriage in America that could not be annulled under the current rules?

Does the archbishop realize that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage – sure, the Roman idea of “matrimonium” involves procreation, but “connubium” does not. Perhaps he should brush up on his Latin.

Then the Archbishop gets cutesy:

“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

“But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.”

Um – with his geographical references, Archbishop Dolan seems to imply that changing the law is something that only happens under “godless communism.”

But the Archbishop is just being silly here and making false analogies.

Indeed, he is so wrong that it would actually be funny if he weren’t attempting to be so serious.

In the United States, we have representative government, legislative bodies that are charged with making and amending laws and administrative bodies making and interpreting regulations, and courts watching over it all – on the federal, state and local levels. For most purposes, marriage is viewed as being among the laws that is defined at the state level, except to the extent that the state presumes to violate an individual federal constitutional right.

To that end, the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia is most instructive, and the Archbishop should consider reading it one of these days.

And then you notice, he sneaks in something in the list of things godless Communists like to redefine – “natural law.” I can’t help but laugh at his ineptitude. It is the Catholic Church whose ideas and concepts of “natural law” have nothing at all to do with nature, and everything to do with Aristotle’s interpretation of nature. We’re lucky that the Church got as far as Aristotle – but Dolan is as wrong here as some of his predecessors in the hierarchy were when they condemned Galileo.

Let’s move on just a little. We know that in the United States, rights, relationships, laws, regulations, etc. are constantly being changed, interpreted and reinterpreted, by legislative and administrative bodies and courts. Yes, there are constitutional limits, but in many ways, the laws and regulations change as the society changes. This is how democratically elected republican government works, unlike the way the Vatican works, which is strictly top-down, and woe to the priest of bishop who steps out of line - so, which is more like North Korea – the Roman Catholic Church, or the New York State legislature?

Continuing with his misstatements, the Archbishop writes: “Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

I understand the difference between freedom and licentious behavior, having spent some time in a Roman Catholic seminary in my pre-transition youth. However, Archbishop Dolan is misusing the concept here. He might make sense if he was describing sexual promiscuity as licentious behavior – but even that, if engaged among consenting adults is legally permitted, regardless of whether it is moral liberty or licentiousness. Lawrence v. Texas clarified the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting adult consensual sexual behavior other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. These laws were generally enforced only against gay people, even though a great deal of heterosexual sexual activity, within and outside of marriage, involves activity other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Morality is an individual matter, while legality is based on constitutional grounds. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to the higher authority – of the Constitution, and not on the laws of a Church imposed on the basis of arbitrary and capricious interpretations of ancient religious writings.

Incredibly, Dolan continues:

“Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.”

That is a bald-faced lie, told with a straight face. Discrimination against the LGBT community is found in nearly everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy writes about marriage, or about transgender human rights. It is as if we are all less than human in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.

Dolan continues:

“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights.”

It is *all* about denying rights, Archbishop. And denying it is futile.

He continues:

“It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don’t vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.”

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not change, by the amendment of the law- it will also mean the union of a man and a man, and a woman with a woman, and of a transgender or intersex person with a man, woman or other transgender or intersex person. The Church will still allow infertile octogenarians to marry despite the lack of any possibility of creating children. The church will bless the marriage of a man to a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

For that matter, the Church will not be forced to marry any non-Catholics, or even Catholics who want a same-sex wedding. The right to discriminate on that level will be preserved – just as a church that would not sanctify an interracial marriage can licitly deny the right to such a wedding in its sanctuary.

Dolan begins his conclusion:

“Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

Again, Dolan does not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between civil marriage and the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. To the extent that Dolan is referring to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament – “an outward sign, instituted by God, to give grace” – he is on solid Catholic theological ground, right from the Baltimore Catechism – but once he presumes to step into the legislative process for civil marriage, his particular religious prejudices should hold no sway.

He wraps up with:

“We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what’s going on there to justify our apprehensions.) But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life’s most basic values.”

Canada and England do not have the constitutional protection of not having established churches, and do not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression. So yes, Archbishop, it’s paranoia – you’re not a “state religion” like the Church of England, and the U.S. has a strong aversion to establishing a religion, and a strong constitutional provision in favor of “free exercise” of religion.

If by “violating our deepest beliefs” he means that providing spousal benefits to married gay employees is somehow wrong, then he’s likely to have his deepest beliefs violated, just as the courts will require a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness’ baby over the objections of parents, or a court would convict someone who decides that their “deepest” religious beliefs require them to kill Wiccans, or stone gays to death, or otherwise not respect the rights of others.

This is where we should have a discussion about the difference between “freedom” and “license” – your freedom to exercise a Catholic faith does not give you the license to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. Your freedom to be Catholic does not give you the license to disrespect my Unitarian marriage, or to treat my marriage in any way under the law as different from any other marriage. Just because the Catholic Church teaches that transsexual people cannot marry anyone, male, female, or other, does not give the Church the right to deny me any civil benefit, even though the Church does not have to provide me with a sacrament.

Dolan violates my deepest beliefs with every word he has written in this blog essay – but that does not give me the right to censor him – he has the right of free speech even if he is lying, as long as he’s not committing defamation. His calumnious column is evidence of his deep official and possibly personal bigotry – I had hoped that he would at least try to keep himself to Church business rather than meddling – but they haven’t given him his cardinal’s hat yet, so he must feel that he has to cater to the irrational ravings from the Vatican on the subject. Would that he were brave enough to stand up and speak truth to power and risk his position. But he’s typical of the corporate middle-management about to break into the upper echelon – don’t rock the boat.

There is no intrusion, just a fairer, more decent law that will provide legal protection to families in need. Poor black and latina lesbians with children,( often children from prior relationships in which they tried to maintain a straight marriage against their natures because of societal expectations) are likely to have the biggest benefit from the broadening of the marriage law. They and their children will benefit.

Society will benefit from the New York legislature’s enactment of marriage equality – and I sincerely hope the legislature does do the right thing, despite pressure from Dolan and the other foes of freedom.
-

Glenn Beck: Half Monkey. Really?

WorldNutDaily is at it again, though this time, they’re merely the conduit.

In an article entitled, “Glen Beck: What if God made us from monkeys?” WND’s Joe Kovacs reports on Beck’s radio show defense of Delaware Republican U.S. Senate candidate Chrisine O’Donnell, and her decidedly creationist views with regard to evolution.

Beck is quoted as saying

“Did evolution just stop? I haven't seen the half-monkey/half-person yet.”

and

“There's no other species that's developing into half-people.”

He even refers to himself, jokingly, as a "half-monkey."

Beck’s justification apparently attemopts to lay its groundwork at the feet of the founding fathers, and without citing him, to Thomas Jefferson – Beck's reasoning includes nonsense like:

“God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator.”

I guess Glenn doesn’t know that Jefferson was a Unitarian, who was interested in nature and skeptical about miracles. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence well before Darwin expounded his theory.

Evolution does not require a denial of the existence of God, though it does not require the existence of a god, either. However, the kind of God that could comfortably co-exist with evolutionary theory is the sort hypothesized by prominent medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas as a prima causa.

This is distinguishable from the God hypothesized by Intelligent Design, which co-opts evolutionary processes but requires the belief that they are “directed” rather than random. Intelligent Design allows believers the hubris of a humanity that is at the top of the chain of evolution, rather than just a different sort of creature. There are many who may even be atheists who also fall into this trap.

While literal Creationism and Intelligent Design ideas are not credible based on the evidence of scientific observation, there are still truths that can be discerned from the Genesis Creation story, as well as aspects that have led many to misleading interpretive conclusions. One does not have to accept literalist interpretations in order to draw out the good.

One of these is the idea of responsible stewardship over the earth and other creatures.

In our everyday lives, it does not matter tremendously whether one individual or another might have a personal belief in a literalist Creation story. Sadly, this is a concept that many literalists, particularly those who believe that the “Rapture” is just around the corner, have abandoned the idea of responsible stewardship. A Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan believed that the sooner we lay waste to the environment, the sooner the rapture would come.

There is a growing movement among responsible evangelical Christians, that is a reaction against the nuttery fomented by the extremists at WorldNutDaily, with their focus on things like teaching creationism in the schools, persecuting gay people, and reducing women to a chattel status.

Before the Roman Catholic Church whipped them up, most evangelicals were neutral on the issue of women’s reproductive rights, and were content with the biblical teaching that taking the first breath was the point at which the soul is infused into a person. Now many of them believe that people are fully human from the moment of conception.

Before the Reaganites whipped them up, evangelical Christians were largely neutral on the issue of politics – preferring to adhere to the Biblical “rendering” teahing – leaving Caesar and God in separate realms. Now, there is a sadly strong Christianist Dominionist movement, braying at how “America is A Christian Nation” and working to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. They even believe that “freedom of religion” applies only to those with a fundamentalist or at least conservative “Christian” faith, grudgingly including fellow-travelers such as Mormons and Roman Catholics.

Beck, who was born and raised Roman Catholic, is a 1999 convert to the Latter Day Saints. He certainly took a different direction than I, a cradle Catholic who, after being thrown out of the Catholic Church that same year, discarded the non-essential aspects of that faith that require a “suspension of disbelief,” and ultimately settled into Unitarian-Universalism.

Unitarian and Universalist principles grew up out of the same fertile 19th century Northeastern religious fervor that spawned the Mormon churches – and yet these churches evolved in very different directions. The Latter Day Saints invented a fanciful theology that requires a belief that the ten “Lost Tribes” of Israel somehow made their way to the North American continent, where they are supposed to have warred with the native peoples. Unitarians and Universalists evolved and merged into a non-credal religious organization based on a respect for many paths to enlightenment (though not all paths are enlightened), with a moral theology that is inclusive and tolerant.

While faith in an imaginary half-baked “history” is a Mormon theological requirement, the mere belief in it is not harmful in and of itself. I am sure that there are many positive aspects to the LDS faith, but there are some teachings that are immoral and destructive.

And Glenn Beck’s faith has among its tenets stories that are no more fanciful than the stories of miracles and the resurrection of more traditional Christianity, that the Unitarian Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the “endowed by our Creator” language in the Declaration of Independence, razored out of his personal Bible.
The problem comes when people like Beck and other CHristianists take their religious myths and expect them to be taught in the schools as science.

Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is an established and proven from a scientific point of view. Not everything is known about the processes of evolution, but based on the observations and evidence, it’s irrefutable. It’s not as if everything has been learned about how it works, but to date, all the evidence is in support of the theory.

That isn’t to say that evolution on earth and in our known universe might only be the result of certain local conditions, much as Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics are local explanations that test well on the human scale, but not in the large ((relativity) and small (quantum) realms. Indeed, large-scale bridge building has to take into account the curvature of the earth – towers that are perpendicular to the surface of the earth but a quarter mile apart are not parallel to each other, and Newtonian theory does not explain the bending of light by gravity, an explanation that makes Einsteinian theory useful on the macro scale.

The principle of natural selection as a random process, basic to evolutionary theory, still makes sense. People often get misconceptions as to the idea of the “survival of the fittest,” imagining competition a being one of “tooth and claw.”

Properly understood, evolutionary theory is simple and elegant, and is borne out by the paleontological record as well as by contemporary observation in shorter-lived animals.

Beck and O’Donnell both assume that we should be seeing monkeys evolving into humans in a short period of time, such assumptions are folly. They fail to realize that gross evolutionary change occurs over millions of years, and then there is also punctuated equilibrium, as creatures react evolutionarily to changes in their environment – those that fail become extinct. We do observe evolutionary change in reaction to environmental pressures occurring in short-lived species.

One bit of evidence for recent evolution among humans comes with the genetic distinction between Tibetans and the Han Chinese with whom they share a common ancestry. Most Tibetans have a genetic makeup that allows for thriving at high latitudes, while these genes are rare in Han Chinese. As with all humans, the evolutionary differences are not sufficient to make Tibetans and other humans into separate species. Even so, the development of these differences came over thousands of years, while the differentiation of primate species takes millions of years.

Perhaps Glen Beck might like to explain what makes Tibetans different from Han Chinese, and how Creationism explains the genetic changes. Han Chinese and Tibetans are both human, but there are differences that are explainable by evolutionary theory, but not by Creation theory, which does not take into account genetic differences among any people alleged to have been descended from a single couple who are supposed to have existed about 4,000 years ago.


In the article, Beck is quoted:

Beck explained, "If God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator."

"Just like you go from a monkey to a man, you go from simple rights to higher rights and somebody has to take those rights and give them to you and take them away or change them. This is again the evolutionary thinking of progressivism."

The philosophical basis for the idea of inalienable rights, while written in the societal context of a then-pervasive creationist deism, does not depend on a deity, but rather on a principle of self-evident truths.

These lofty-minded principles are assumptions. The idea that “all men are created equal” may well have meant, using the idea of “original intent,” to encompass only white, anglo-saxon, protestant property owning males, particularly because of the existence of slavery, the limitations on voting such as poll taxes and literacy tests, and the non-inclusion of women in colonial times. Jefferson himself was a slave owner, and treated at least one of his female house slaves as a concubine with whom he fathered children, and not necessarily with her informed consent, particularly because of the relative power between master and slave,

However, as much as Glenn Beck pooh-poohs the idea of the evolution of ideas, and the evolution of inalienable rights, we have seen the arc of history bend ever so slowly toward justice.

While today, we assume that “all men” uses a meaning of “men” that includes women and the descendents of former slaves, that was not self-evident to the founding fathers.

No one has to “give” us these rights, but as society gradually becomes more civilized, it begins to recognize these rights as being more pervasive.

Gays have just as much of an inalienable right as anyone else to serve in the military and get married – the problem is that the law does not in most cases currently recognize the essential justice of the situation.

Biblical literalists once asserted that the enslavement of racially non-white Africans and their descendants was based on the Word of God as found in Genesis – and they would refer to their slaves as “the children of Ham.” (Bible-based racism can be found in the early history of our space program – our first chimp in space was named Ham, for example.) Today they want their religion-based creationism taught in schools, and they want their particular brand of Christianist faith to be the basis for the secular law.

Yet African Americans were freed from slavery, only to find themselves after a few brief years of Reconstruction to be relegated to a second class status by reason of the separate and quite unequal doctrine of racial segregation that was permitted by the federal courts. Even today, there are lingering effects of a continuing and insidious institutionalized racism that permeates the United States like an evil stench, largely not noticed by whites but still an affliction.

Racism, Heterosexism, Patriarchism , Cisgenderism and Dominionism are all examples of barriers to an inclusive understanding of the principles on which the nation was founded. Glen Beck complains because he thinks that evolution gets in the way of our inalienable rights. The problem is that Christianist thinking is perhaps the biggest obstacle to our rights. Christianity is fine, Christianist oppression is not. Beck, like the folks at WorldNutDaily, does not get the difference.

Carl Paladino APOLOGIZES!

After first trying to deny his words, or some of them (the ones he had in his written speech but didn't read), Carl Paladino has done something unusual - he has actually apologized.

The actual and unedited text of his apology is below. While I still disagree with him on a large number of issues and I still support his Democratic opponent in the New York gubernatorial election, the issuance of an actual apology that has a minimum of weasel wording is worth noting. As a reward, I am editing my earlier post to remove the caricature of Mr. Paladino's head with the Charlie Chaplin moustache photoshopped onto a picture of one A. Hitler, former Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

Here is the text of the apology, followed by my comments:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

The only weasely words?

I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated.

The "should have chosen better words" part requires some amplification, as does the "misinterpreted and misstated."

It's really hard to misinterpret and misstate an unaltered video.

Essentially, what Carl biggest mistake was to read someone else's words as his own, slightly edited. That someone was most probably the ultra-conservative right wing "Rabbi" Yehuda Levin, the leader of a tiny ultra-Orthodox but not Hasidic Jewish sect.

Carl was trying to garner support from these people by telling them pretty much what their leader wanted them to hear. So, if he doesn't believe what he told them, he was lying to them to get their vote, possibly not thinking that the terribly nasty things he was saying to pander to this small group was going to be spread to the rest of the world by way of the news media and the blogosphere.

This is the sort of campaign trick that used to work fairly well - a candidate would tell a small group what they wanted to hear without fearing that the words would be recorded and broadcast, and then promising something else to some other group.

In this case, Mr. Paladino got caught.

His hiding behind Barack Obama's skirts as if the President is his mommy, on the issue of marriage equality, is rather disingenuous. President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is another example of a lying politician who has told many different stories to many different groups on many different issues, though President Obama's actual record is mixed.

If Carl really believes in "live and let live," he would be willing to put the Constitution above his religious prejudices - why should the Catholic Church decide whether gay Unitarians should be able to get legally married?

The fact remains that no one who places the immoral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of New York, is and remains unqualified to be Governor.

The addition of "Initiative" and "Referendum" like they have in California, particularly if not limited so that individual rights are unaffected, is likely to result in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Popular votes taken to limit the rights of people who are different that they don't like, can result in injustice - the majority is not always right.

Carl - if your apology was genuine and sincerely intended:

- Will you openly sponsor a civil marriage bill as a Governor's program bill? (It has to be civil marriage, because "live and let live" does not work any other way unless you abolish civil marriage for everyone in New York and leave it up to the churches and individuals to decide for themselves on the basis of their own personal beliefs). It is okay for you to be personally against marrying a man yourself - you already have a wife, and a female concubine (well, how else am I supposed to describe the mother of your daughter . . .) - you don;t have to choose to marry a man - so that's where your personal beliefs are appropriate.

- Will you make GENDA a Governor's program bill? It would extend human rights and hate crimes protections to the trans community.

- Will you direct insurance companies and Medicaid to provide for medically appropriate care for all, including transgender New Yorkers?

- Will you pledge to let the federal government deal with immigration issues and leave the State out of it?

- Will you support abolishing city, town and village governments (excepting New York City) and provide for consolidation of services (including school districts) at the county level?

- Will you support making Medicaid costs the sole responsibility of the State without passing the cost off to the counties?

- Will you support the abolition of "member items?"

- Will you support the elimination of all loopholes in the mortgage recording tax?

- Will you support the adoption of the ACRIS recording system on a statewide basis, with local recording officers acting only as agents of the state? Will you provide for free online public access to land records (as they do in the State of Florida?)

I have much longer laundry list, but something along these lines would be a start.

Taking the Medicaid burden off county governments and consolidating local municipalities and districts to the county government level would go much farther toward reducing the real property tax burden than the things you're foolishly promising already.

But Carl, I do thank you for the apology - it's not something that a Ruben Diaz or a Sally Kern would ever do. It may be that all you need is a little education.

If you don't follow through on your apology, would you prefer I find a photo of Benito Mussolini to use as the basis for a caricature?

Carl Paladino Dysfunctional and Unfit for Governor

PICTURE REMOVED BASED ON CARL PALADINO ISSUING AN APOLOGY.
Carl Paladino showing his true colors.

In a story published today, The New York Daily News quotes Carl Paladino, the clearly mentally unstable short-fused dysfunctional heterosexist whoremonger "Republican" candidate for New York Governor as saying,

"I didn't march in the Gay Pride parade this year. My opponent did. [There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That's not how God created us, and ] that's not the example that we should be showing our children - and certainly not in our schools."

*(italics show portion of Carl's statement NOT in the video remarks. Still, the rest was bad enough.)

Paladino was also quoted as saying that he does not support gay bashing,

"Don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live."

It is actually even worse than reported at the Daily News - here is a video of the speech with some context:



Video source: Azi Paybarah via Pam's House Blend.


When Carl thinks of gay people as “dysfunctional,” he clearly shows his ignorance of the fact that for a percentage of the population, same-sex attraction is a part of their nature. When he says “That’s not how God created us” he shows his irrational prejudice is based on the teachings of some repellant and immoral false religious cult he may profess as a mask to cover his naked bigotry. When he talks about “examples for children” he implies that gays are unfit to be teachers, and that children should not be taught that there are different family constellations,and that gays should be relegated to the shadows and closets. Essentially, Carl has once again shown in a clear and unambiguous fashion that he is completely and totally unfit for election to the position of Governor of the State of New York.

The video reveals more:

Carl says:

"We must not pander to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives."

Carl is himself actually the sort of dysfunctional heterosexist pervert who wants to target our children, and anyone who is different, and destroy our lives, if we're not macho like him.

"I just think that my children, and your children, will be much better off, and much more successful, getting married and raising a family."

And what does he mean - is he supporting marriage equality? I sincerely doubt it, not in his bigoted context.

"And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option."

Carl proves he is a loon - homosexuality is not an option, it's a natural sexual orientation for a percentage of the population. Perhaps Carl should get some education before shooting off his mouth. Perhaps the sort of "homosexual" experiences Carl may have had were the kind that oversexed macho men who can;t keep "it" in their pants have when they don't have immediate access to women, like what he seems to have wanted to do with that New York Post Reporter he wanted to "take out" last week.

Carl Paladino has provem that he is is a liar, a sneak, a cheat, a whoremonger and an unscrupulous businessman. He is a clearly dysfunctional heterosexist who, based on the evidence of his display of sexual “prowess” won't be able to control his sexual urges unless he submits to a voluntary castration, and perhaps not even then.

He is so ashamed of his love child that he is unwilling to appear with her and his concubine with the rest of his family in campaign appearances. He has been paying off his concubine to keep her quiet and out of the picture. He pretends he is trying to protect the unfortunate child, but it is clear from his actions that he is not protecting her, but rather that he is ashamed of her – or else he would take her with him on the campaign, with both his wife, his concubine, and his other surviving children, and show the world he’s proud of her, and that she has a father who’s good for more than hush money.

After first erupting with his bilious and noxious lunacy, when he was challenged by a reported, he either backed off like the miserable cowardly pusillanimous uncouth wacko that he is, or he contradicted his earlier statement somewhat when he realized he went way over the line.

From what he says, it appears that he does not want private individuals gay bashing – he wants to make that the prerogative of the government of the State of New York. His earlier comments certainly did not imply a “live and let live” attitude.

Does he mean he is planning yet another way to repurpose the portions of the prison system that are going unused since the repeal of the horribly repressive Rockefeller drug laws? Is he already planning some sort of “final solution” for welfare recipients and gays?

Already, the camps he plans for welfare recipients sound like they will bear the motto, “Work will make you free.” The last time that was used, in the 1930's and 40's, the results for the inmates were not very promising.

Does he plan on rounding up gay teachers, and other LGBT people, and putting us all in camps, too, to be subjected to medical experiments from the quacks from NARTH in an attempt to find a “cure?”

When he was reported as making these statements, Carl was apparently talking to a group of Orthodox Jews – perhaps he forgot that Jewish people were among those rounded up for the camps the last time around – and maybe they have not forgotten. On the other hand, hearing their applause, perhaps they have forgotten - maybe they want it to happen all over again. Perhaps, in Carl's world, at some point he will be coming for them, too, and when he comes for them, who will speak up for them?

I must remind Carl that last week, he told a reporter from the New York Post, ”I’m gonna take you out!” If that wasn’t a threat of bodily harm, perhaps it was a request for a date. Considering Carl’s apparent satyriasis (inability to keep “it” in his pants), perhaps his dysfunctional voracity means he is willing to do it to anything that moves.

Carl Paladino has crossed the line one time too many. He has shown his true colors, and they are not at all pretty.

Carl, there is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional heterosexual. Not all heterosexuals are dysfunctional, but your history shows that you're mentally unfit and not exactly monagamous. God did not create you to be a bigot and a whoremonger.

New York does need any more short-tempered ill-mannered bigots, Carl. You are certainly not an example of an upstanding citizen who merits election to office, and you are a bully - not the sort of example that schoolchildren should emulate. I am standing up to you, bully, and I am not going away. I am a transsexual woman and a lesbian, and I vote. My vote, and the votes of many millions of New Yorkers, are going to make sure that you are going to return to Buffalo with your tail between your legs.

I am calling on you to do something honorable for the second time in your life (the first being when, at the request of your now-deceased drug addict son, you honorably admitted the existence of your concubine and child to your wife) – Do yourself a favor and withdraw from the race, before you embarrass yourself any more, and before you are buried by a landslide at the ballot box.

Gary Bauer Sows the Wind, May he Reap the Whirlwind!

Gary Bauer, former president of the notorious “Family” Research Council, appeared at that organization’s recent “Value Voters Summit” to urge Christianist Dominionists, social conservatives, misguided “tea partiers” and the other assembled wingnuts, to get out and vote in November, using verbal imagery evoking the heroic struggle of the passengers of United Flight 93, who fought back against the hijackers, resulting in that plane ending up in a field in Pennsylvania rather than the White House or another building in Washington D.C.

This clip is actually rather inspiring:



But Bauer does not tell his audience that at least one of those “American heroes” on that Flight 93 was a gay man.

Okay, so they can’t handle the truth.

If these wingnuts are going to profane the memory of the martyrs of Flight 93 to push their evil agenda and motivate their colleagues to come out and vote, I perhaps should not stoop to their level.

But I will.

So, after watching the Bauer clip, follow it with a rendition of Melissa Etheridge’s “Tuesday Morning” -





Okay, folks – this song should silence the Bauers and the other wingnuts.

LGBT Americans are Americans, too – and our people can be and have been every bit as heroic as any other Americans.

We deserve the same rights as other Americans.

People like Gary Bauer want to push us down. They are motivating their troops to get out the vote.

I urge readers to share these two clips widely – and let your friends know that people who really love liberty, who really love freedom of religion, who really love American principles, have to get motivated to come out and vote.

Gary Bauer may have sown the wind with his speech – may he reap the whirlwind!

Or else, the misguided Tea Partiers and Christianist Dominionists like Carl Palladino, Christine O’Donnell, and their evil cohorts are going to win in November – and when they come for us, who will speak for us?

Bryan Fischer's revisionist history of Hitler exposed.

On May 25, 2010 (I know, this is actually relatively “old” news in September) – Bryan Fischer went off the deep end on his radio show, equating Hitler with atheism and homosexuality. The video clip was removed from youtube as a “terms of use” violation, without a specification as to the type of “terms of use” violation. I found it on another source. The use here of this video clip is a legitimate “fair use” – neither Fischer nor his organization is entitled to claim a copyright violation for the use of the video clip:



To the extent that the clip might be deemed to be “offensive” – the usage here is to prove just how offensive to reason and sanity Bryan Fischer really is – in his own words.

At least it’s clear that he loses on the basis of Godwin’s Law, alone, for being the first to bring up “Hitler” or “Nazi.”

Serendipitously, my friend Zoe Brain came up with the refutation for Fischer’s wingnuttery in a recent blog post of hers – apparently in response to an entirely different issue (involving the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church pedophilia coveruup, and Joseph Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth), but the parts that refute Bryan Fischer are reproduced below;
Zoe’s entire post is here.

Below is the results of Zoe’s research that are relevant to Bryan Fischer’s:

But I thought a former member of the Hitler Youth [JP note: i.e., Benedict XVI] would have recalled some of Der Fuehrer's speeches on the subject. Words such as:

"We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion."

-- Radio address October 14, 1933

National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious,
but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The
Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against
the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the
Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in
our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the
conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil
war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are
Christian principles

-- Koblenz speech, August 26, 1934

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no
religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious
foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion
must be derived from faith."

That one's in the Vatican Archives. It's part of the Vatican-Nazi
Konkordat of April 26, 1933

As the Nazi State Labour Leader, Reichsarbeitsführer Robert Ley proclaimed:

We believe that there is a Lord - God in heaven, who created us, who leads
us, who directs us and who blesses us visibly. And we believe that this Lord—God
sent Adolf Hitler to us, so that Germany become a fundament for all eternity.

-- NS-Schulungsbriefe, Heft 4/1937.

Thanks for the research, Zoe! I don’t think I know anyone who has her level of positive credibility.

Hitler may or may not have been a “practicing” Catholic as an adult, but he was never officially excommunicated, either. Certainly Pius XII did not do a great deal to oppose Nazi policies. I am not entirely sure whether Bryan Fischer might recognize Roman Catholics as Christians (there are some ignorant Christianists who don’t understand that “Christian” is not limited to the “born again” crowd. It’s hard to tell where Fischer might fall on that issue without a smoking gun).

Is there anything Bryan Fischer is not willing to lie about?

The fact is that there were gay men in Hitler's early retinue of brownshirts. But Fischer's characterization is off the mark. Not all brownshirts were gay. Hitler brutally purged them as he gained in power. The Third Reich made a really big thing about "family values" - and like the Duggars and their "quiver full," to increase the number of Christians, "Aryan" German women were expected to make many babies to strengthen the Reich.

See, for example this site for a summary of Nazi ideology. While there was an "elite" Nazi subculture that encouraged a Greek-style Platonic homosexuality (much as one used to, and still can sometimes find in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, such as with Pius XII and his protege Francis Cardinal Spellman, though the *pedophile* problem is not related to this subculture), the German people were expected to have "Strength, passion, lack of hypocrisy, utilitarianism, traditional family values, and devotion to community," and gays who were not part of the elite were persecuted (much as in Christianist circles - where closeted gay but officiallty "anti-homosexual" preachers, when caught, will seek forgiveness and just get more careful not to get caught).

The biggest problem with Fischer's attempt to make it seem that homosexuality is evil because it was associated with Nazi ideology, and that some of Hitler's gay associates were brutal. Many of his straight associates were just as brutal.

Should we condemn all Christianist Dominionists because some of the more virulent and hate-filled ones turn out to be gay? No - Christianist Dominionism is evil in and of itself, regardless of the sexual orientation of the preachers.

Should we condemn Roman Catholicism because there are gays in the hierarchy? No, the Roman Catholic Church does a fairly good job at claiming that morally evil things are good without having to look at the sexual orientation of the members of the hierarchy.

Should we condemn McCarthyism because J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn were gay?

See this site for some interesting discussion of gay McCarthyites.

McCarthyism was evil regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved in the witch hunts and purges.

Bryan Fischer is, as usual, lying, and taking things out of context to prove something about gay being evil. All he does is prove, once again, that he has only the most tenuous connection with reality.