'A National Moral Crisis' of Faith and Fisc

In her proclamation for a renewal of Christian virtues, State Rep Sally Kern states that “we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis,” and with her I must wholeheartedly agree.  Many of nation’s financial stewards have surely violated Biblical proscriptions against, for example, “usury and unjust gain” in order to work an increase of substance for themselves at the expense of honesty and fair dealing.  No doubt all manner of solid Biblical principles may be invoked against those whom we ought to hold most accountable for our present financial crisis.  The great sins of sloth, pride, and avarice may no doubt be rightly cited and properly condemned in many quarters, from the profligacy of individual debtors to the ludicrous practices of those trading in securitized debts.

 

These are not, however, the sins upon which Kern chooses to focus her protestation.  Immediately after noting the threat of a “national moral crisis” she goes on to enumerate a number of particular moral issues which she considers of great concern, including “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse,” as well as “forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built” and disregard of “biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior.”

 

I have struggled mightily with the logic implicit in these passages.  It would seem to me on a prima facie reading that Kern intends for the reader to conclude that our economic woes are the direct consequence of our collective national failure to “to live above reproach in the sight of God” and that this failure may be illustrated and exemplified by the various sins which she has enumerated.  It seems terribly odd, though, that she fails to list the particular sins which actually lead to our current financial crisis.  If you look carefully at her list of sins, there is only one common theme running throughout, that is, the means of reproduction, to include both childbearing and childrearing.  Every sin listed either prevents or hinders the acts of childbearing, or else creates circumstances under which Kern would rather not see children raised. 

 

How then can one logically link unbiblical reproductive practices to the national financial crisis?  There are only three basic possibilities:

 

A)      These particular national sins directly brought about our economic woes, or

B)       These particular national sins indirectly brought about our economic woes, or

C)       These particular national sins are causally unrelated to our economic woes

Given that Kern’s accusation of various national sins follows immediately after her allegation of a “national moral crisis,” we must assume that these moral issues are subsumed into that broad category, and therefore at least form part of the national crisis which led to our economic woes.  Thus, option (C) may be excluded, since Kern claims that the economic downturn is the result of our national moral crisis taken as a whole.  It would be absurd special pleading to claim that Kern really meant “our economic woes are consequences [of a particular subset] of our national moral crisis” and then went on to enumerate a list of sins from another subset altogether.

 

As to option (A), this is the alternative that ACLU seems to take in their press release on the subject, where they claim that the “proclamation blames the economic downturn we are currently experiencing on abortion, pornography, divorce, and same sex marriage, among other things.”  I think this is a reasonable and straightforward reading of the proclamation, but perhaps not the correct one. 

 

I would argue that option (B) is the best reading, inasmuch as it allows for the following interpretation:

 

1.       “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.”

2.       The U.S. was blessed, at least until it forsook “its rich Christian heritage.”

3.       Now, we are no longer blessed, because of our various sins, including those noted in the proclamation.

4.       Therefore, the solution a “national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.”

 

Thus, the economic downturn was not caused (in Kern’s view) directly by the economic consequences of sexual sins but rather by the metaphysical mediations of an ‘Invisible Hand’ more powerful and intentional than that spoken of by Adam Smith.

Oklahoma Proclamation for Religious Liberty

WHEREAS, Sally Kern and theocrats of her ilk have proclaimed that morality requires an abandonment of basic religious and civil liberties in favor universal acceptance of a particular ancient mythology; and

WHEREAS, they have abandoned historical scholarship, repeatedly taking the names of the Founding Fathers in vain and attributing to them many words which they had never spoken nor put to parchment; and

WHEREAS, Patrick Henry never claimed that “This great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians.”

WHEREAS, John Adams signed into law a treaty, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, stating plainly that the “government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” (1797)

WHEREAS, John Adams repeatedly criticized fundamental Christian doctrines, such as when he referred to the alleged mystery of the Trinity and Atonement as “a convenient cover for absurdity.” (1756)

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson also repeatedly criticized Christian doctrines, but wrote approvingly of his own efforts to establish religious freedom as broadly as possible, claiming that the Virginia Bill for religious freedom meant to encompass “within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” (1821)

WHEREAS, James Madison never wrote approvingly of the “Ten Commandments of God” as a guide to public policy, but was rather an indefatigable proponent of the separation of church and state and rightly noted that the effect of ecclesiastical establishments are these, “In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.” (1785)

WHEREAS, it is in fact impossible to find in the remarkably voluminous collected works of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, a single line unequivocally affirming Jesus to be the incarnation of a deity or the Christ to whom they personally looked for salvation.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all those who sign on to Sally Kern’s proclamation of Christian Nationalism, revising history to suit their theocratic agenda, are perpetuating a blatant fraud and a lie, libelously imputing to the Founders words which never they wrote nor spoke in a shameless affront to the very liberties they defended.

BE IT RESOLVED that the signatories are traitors to liberty, inasmuch as they solemnly declare that all Oklahomans must look to only one religion and one holy text, in violation of both the Federal and State Constitutional guarantees of complete religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

BE IT RESOLVED that those among them solemnly sworn to defend these Constitutions are oath-breakers, who ought never henceforth be trusted with elective office.

BE IT RESOLVED that whatever gods may exist will call these signatories to repentance for their repeated acts of bearing false witness against the Founding Fathers and their oath-breaking attacks upon our religious liberty. May they be given an awakening of righteousness as they repent of this great sin.

Silly Sally Strikes Again!

http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/4197/Default.aspx

Once again, Oklahoma’s most infamous theocrat and homophobe speaks out against the gays and their nefarious plot to undermine the most venerable and sacred institution of marriage. Almost every single sentence is a gem, sparkling with hard-core homo-hatred and revealing the sort of gloriously transcendent ignorance usually reserved for the boundless and reckless confidence of early youth.

Ø For centuries, traditional marriage has been the bedrock institution of society, providing stability and sustainability.

I seem to recall this very same argument being used by those who sought to preserve the institutions of monarchy, slavery, apartheid, and female subjugation to fathers and husbands. Hey, we’ve done it this way for centuries, why stand up for freedom now?

Ø Only traditional marriage produces children, which perpetuates future generations.

Right – no one ever has children out of wedlock. If that actually happened we’ve have to invent new terms, such as ‘bastardy’ to describe the amazing and heretofore unknown phenomenon of illegitimate children, born to single mothers.

Ø While same-sex couples can adopt or be inseminated, this is not the norm.

Silly Sally, it is not a valid argument against minority rights merely to point out that minorities are in the minority.

Ø For posterity, society has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage.

If that is so, why attack same-sex couples instead of outlawing adultery and heterosexual divorce? Clearly, these latter phenomena are far more of a threat to traditional marriages. Why not loose your venom on the likes of Edward, Spitzer, Ensign, and Sanford, all of whom are undermining the prestige of marriage far more publicly and effectively than same-sex couples who value the institution so highly as to covet it for themselves.

Ø Countless studies prove that children thrive best when reared in a home with a mother and a father.

Name one. No, really. Just one. Show me the data.

Ø Children need the unique qualities that each gender brings into the nurturing process.

Such as? I defy anyone to name a character trait (whether strength or weakness) which is the province of one gender alone.

Ø Also, a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman helps to protect from STDs.

Any monogamous relationship is wholly preserved from STDs from outside of the relationship. Oddly enough, monogamy works for same-sex couples, too.

Ø Biology is important in the same-sex marriage debate.

Maybe so, but I doubt that anyone who publicly speaks out against the teaching of the biological sciences to public school children on account of her own faith commitments is in a very good position to talk about science.

Ø It doesn’t take a genius to know that a man’s and a woman’s body parts naturally fit together.

It also does not take a genius to realize that nature is not exactly a good guide for morality. Go watch the Discovery Channel sometime and ask yourself whether you should get away with eating someone else’s cubs, pushing their babies out of their cradle, or pecking the brains out of your weaker siblings.

Ø The anatomy of opposite sexes was made to complement each other.

Made? According to your ancient religious cosmogony, no doubt, but this is a matter of public policy and civil rights, not a Sunday School lesson for children.

Ø Two men or two women can’t physically complement one another.

You’ve evidently not been grepping through the internets for the relevant videos. Hell, you must also be avoiding Showtime.

Ø There are also other differences between the sexes than just physical. Emotional and psychological differences exist.

Such as? Once again, I defy anyone to name a character trait (whether strength or weakness) which is the province of one gender alone.

Ø A man cannot meet all the needs of another man and vice versa.

Sill Sally, just because you’ve never met a well-adjusted gay or lesbian couple doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Come on out to the Pride Festival this weekend I’ll introduce you to a few of them.

Ø Homosexuals say same-sex marriage is their civil right, comparing their quest for marriage equality to blacks in their struggle for equality. But homosexuals have always had all the rights of citizenship, unlike blacks.

If you do not think the struggle for marriage equality is analogous to civil rights, I invite you to peruse the majority decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Ø Homosexuality is not self-evident the way black is.

Sally to gays- “Get back in the closet!”

Ø Homosexuality is not inborn.

Surely, one can simply choose whether or not to find either gender attractive. It’s not as if we are preprogrammed to be aroused be certain sights, sounds, and tactile experiences.

Ø If it were, from which parent was it inherited?

Ever heard of recessive alleles, Sally? Oh, right, I forgot that you loathe and avoid any field of study which dares challenge your cherished origin myths.

Ø No validated scientific study has ever proven there is a “gay gene.”

The right question is not whether there is a single gene, but rather a statistically demonstrable genetic component. Again, your abysmal ignorance of scientific methods (and Google) are on display here.

Ø Everyone is equal and worthy of respect, but not all ideas or behaviors are equal.

This may be the only incontrovertibly true sentence in the entire article. Brava!

Birthday news wrap-up

Maybe not the best to focus on news of the near-east:

In Tehran, death toll jumps to 19

Los Angeles Times

Iraqi bombing death toll climbs

BBC News

7 militants killed by Pakistan citizens' militia

The Associated Press

Rocket attack at Afghan base kills two US troops, injures six others

Los Angeles Times

John Ensign, Promise Maker

Alleged ‘Promise Keeper’ John Ensign called for disgraced fellow Senator Larry Craig to step down back in October 2007, reportedly around six weeks before he started having an affair with one of his employees.  Once again, we find that those we speak up loudly in defense of so-called ‘traditional marriage’ are evidently overcompensating for their own personal failure to create a marital union which they themselves consider worthy of honoring.

 

Thank you, GOP leadership, for time and again so vividly demonstrating that no one should take your empty rhetoric even remotely seriously.  Have fun in the political wilderness!

 

 

Religious Endorsement versus Religious Liberty

Respecting recent government attempts to endorse Mosaic Law and Christian theology, there are three interrelated questions here and it is easy enough to get them confused. The first is a question of ethics, the second a question of state constitutional law, the third a question of federal constitutional law.

As to the question of ethics, I’ve always thought it hypocritical and indicative of shallow ethical thinking for anyone to claim that official government endorsement of their own religious views is perfectly ethical and should not be seen as a violation of anyone’s right to equal treatment under the law, even though they would think it obviously immoral for the government to erect a massive monument to any other religion. Imagine the hue and cry from the Christians if the government erected a massive homage stone mandating worship of Krishna, Buddha, or Allah (or even Jehovah, if monument indicated any Messiah other than their own). I’ve no doubt, also, that the consistent failure among Christians to see this as an obvious violation of the Golden Rule is little more than self-deception, the fruits of an unexamined life. Those that say they would be content living in a theocracy not of their own making are suffering from a failure of imagination, at best.

As to the question of state law, it is essentially where to draw the line between free expression of private faith and the government creating policies which have the effect of endorsing an official religion. In Oklahoma, that line could not be any clearer, as a matter of state constitutional law. Since both Commandments monuments would clearly and unequivocally make indirect use of “public money or property . . . for the use, benefit, or support of [a] system of religion” there is really very little to argue about here.

As to the federal question, one must look to the interpretations which the federal courts have put upon the Bill of Rights and the 14^th Amendment. I’ve no time to go into detail right now, but suffice to say that the 10^th Circuit issued a fine opinion in this case, and I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS grants cert (unless of course a sister circuit has by then created a split between the circuits).

In summary, Oklahoma’s monuments to ancient Hebrew religious dicta fail all three tests: the Golden Rule, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Federal Constitution. It is time for the government (at every level) to move on to solving problems instead of creating them by introducing religious divisions into the discourse.