Christianity, Inc.: A pox on all your houses
this is an op-ed piece by ed firmage that appeared in yesterday's salt lake tribune. i am reprinting it here without permission. enjoy.
--------------------------------------
Now, the Religious Right, the Republican Party at Prayer, wants to foist upon the American people through the American Constitution, a zealously narrow definition of "family." Yes, the big, boisterous community always evolving and never, thank God, definable, confinable. Enter the new social Darwinists, the Christian Right.
The American family, says a gaggle of old men - Mormons, a few celibate Roman Catholic bishops, and the Moral Majority - consists of one man, one woman and whatever number of children may result from this union. That's it. Nothing more.
So much for single parents, divorced people, a family of celibate nuns or priests, gay and lesbian folk and the polygamists. So much, it would seem, for Mormonism of the 19th century. Including my grandfathers (depending on how and who you count), Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Are all of us, descendants of these pioneers of the American West, bastards? Says who?
How in the name of God dare they? These self-righteous, self-appointed shepherds of the American Constitution. They would be better advised to keep such crap carefully contained within the walls of their half-empty churches. The American Constitution is too important a document to be abused in this manner.
Thomas and Martha Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Abigail and John Adams, and Dolly and James Madison would not appreciate such lobbying by these clergymen of pious persuasion from the far right side of the wall between church and state. Abraham Lincoln and Eleanor and Franklin D. Roosevelt would wonder at those who invoked piety in order to accomplish a savage denial, a shrinking of fundamental human rights.
Taking leave from their breathless presumptuousness, let me join them, however briefly, with a godly blast of my own. How dare they take the name of the Lord their God in vain? These villains. I don't think God gives a tinker's damn if I say "hell" when I hit my thumb with a hammer. But I know the Lord God is offended when we use His name to hurt, badly to injure, his little ones, his lambs, his little lambs.
Sexuality and gender are holy mysteries: just how we become human, how we gradually assume the image of God, upon what graduated plane do we tend more toward the male or the female and still call God father, mother . . . All this is holy ground.
This whole ground ripples with the holiness of the Lord. We feel God's spirit wafting through the land and the water of our soul. Just what is sexuality? Gender? God's image? We take off our shoes. The last (meaning worst) thought we might have would be of the brittleness of the law. The law, at best, is a schoolmaster.
But in sexuality, gender, family, the Imago Dei; in such areas we move far beyond the capacity of law to effect change or enforce a status quo. Here, and way before these outer reaches of spirituality, the law reveals is impotence. If we push the law into such places, we come to understand just why St. Matthew quotes Jesus as hyphenating "lawyers and hypocrites" (Cf., Matt. 25).
It is not in the interest of society, civil or religious, to outlaw or to marginalize the very people we see as most tenderly needing our help. The 19th century witnessed the outlawry and the excommunication from civil society of my people, the Mormons. Both polygamy and theocracy (each more than evident in the strident statement at issue) were the reasons given by the mobs that burnt our homes, murdered our people, torched our temples and chased us into what was then Mexico, when we left Nauvoo, Ill., in the mid-1840s.
Now, we've changed sides. Now, we join the bad guys and beat up on those who most need and deserve our protection and fellowship.
The good old boys missed this one.
---
Ed Firmage is the Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, emeritus, at the University of Utah College of Law.
"we join the bad guys and beat up on those who most need and deserve our protection and fellowship"
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty interesting to see the church defining the family into such narrow terms.
If plural marriage is a law of heaven, why wouldn't Mormons want to try and pass that as law? It seems that they could join the crowd for gay marriage and then tag on plural marriage, too. It's a win-win strategy :-)
Firmage sounds like he's been skipping his anger management classes.
ReplyDeletethanks for posting this...i'm sure i wouldn't have caught it otherwise.
ReplyDeleteS.O.: Firmage doesn't sound overly angry to me; just passionate about the issue.
APJ
Personaly, I feel that people all to quickly associate polygamy with homosexuality, especially in context of religion. God has allowed, periodicly, the practice of polygamy, with self evidence rampant through scripture. However, it was only allowed that your multiply partner be of the oposite sex -- there was no polygamouse homo/bi-sexual relationships allowed. In fact, through all scripture the act of homosexuality in any form is a big NO! This in no way stats that homosexuality is this evil choice that people lust after. I read a talk once, unfortunatly I can't recall who gave it or the exact title but I'm sure a quick search will find it. It's by one of the 12, and I believe it's called "The One" and it was addressed to those with same sex attraction. It is a common beliefe amongst mormons (and people in general) that we are given trials and tests in this life that will help us grow ... same sex attraction is one of those trials that some people have. It's okay to have homosexual tendencies. It means that you are a normal human being. Unfortunatly, homosexuality has never been "okay" in religious terms. Now, how someone who has these tendencies is going to be judged ... let's just say I'm eternally grateful that I don't have to judge them.
ReplyDeleteThis is in no way meant to be an "answer" to this article, and I'm well aware that some of you will try to philosophies your way around me, but it is my belief that we should compare apples to apples, and unfortunatly homosexuality and polygamy aren't similar enough to compare.
ryan o
ryan, thats nice that you have feelings about things. but why should your religious feelings be grounds for taking away others' rights?
ReplyDeletecomparing the ban on gay marriages to the ban on plural marriages is not all apples and oranges. both bans are primarily based on religious opinions. who cares if the bible supported one or the other, when the legality of it is in question. i'm sorry, but you can't defer to your religious beliefs as justification for amending the constitution to ban a type of marriage.
I'm sorry you had to belittle me to try and make your point. I still stand by my original claim that homosexuality and polygamy aren't alike enough to compare.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty interesting to see the church defining the family into such narrow terms.
Natural Law stats that homosexuals can't have children -- To make children you must have a mother AND a father. There by mommy + daddy + children = family. Partner + Partner = couple. (yeah, start in on the adoption issue here ...)
If plural marriage is a law of heaven, why wouldn't Mormons want to try and pass that as law?
According to the narrator what is law in heaven has to do with religious belief's and therefor can not be including in a political discussion
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Are all of us, descendants of these pioneers of the American West, bastards
This would in effect be making a law "retro-active". I find if funny that a law proffesor would make that mistake
self-righteous, self-appointed shepherds of the American Constitution.
Okay, so I'm to understand now that anyone who takes a stance on any issue -- say, someone who thinks we should grant citizenship to anyone that steps foot into our country (b/c that's how they interpret the constitution) -- is a self-righteous, self-appointed ... etc. I'm at a lost as to why someone can't have an opinion in opposition without name calling ... it's a really sad comment on american democracy.
The American Constitution is too important a document to be abused in this manner.
Then why is he limiting it to HIS interpretation??? Under this very document aren't we guaranteed the freedom of speech? The very freedom that the church is using, the very freedom that he is attacking??? wow ...
But I know the Lord God is offended when we use His name to hurt, badly to injure, his little ones, his lambs, his little lambs.
Unless he does it ... I believe the commandment was to kill the caananites, every last man woman AND child. -- Let me guess, that scripture doesn't fit well with "modern" thinking and so therefor must be wrong, badly interpreted, made up, ... whatever else. We do only want to quote the bible when it supports us, not when it opposes us.
... I'm done with this, the entire article draws conclusions where they don't exsist. He basis his opinions on the very same foundation that he blasts others for using - Their beliefs. The number of times he used his own beliefe system to state why someone else's is wrong ... unreal!
Go ahead, start the philosophical dance.
Ryan
ryan. we speak two different languages. i know what you are saying. you just don't get it. it's fine.
ReplyDeletei'm not trying to belittle you, but i'm just trying to point out that personal religious feelings do not give someone a right to take away someone else's rights.
Natural Law stats that homosexuals can't have children
natural law is a description of what has happened, not what will (or will not) necessarily happen. natural law changes all the time. it's called science. hypothesis are made, they are tested, they are adjusted, and they repeat the process. anomalies are almost always found and require hypothesis to be tested. the ability to have children is hardly a requirement for marriage though. if a heterosexual couple are unable to have childre, by your logic they have no right to be married. incidently, two women are theoretically able to conceive now.
According to the narrator what is law in heaven has to do with religious belief's and therefor can not be including in a political discussion
wrong. i think religious beliefs should be included when one is acting in the politcal arena. however, because we have a church-state divide, those beliefs must be rendered into a secular arguement.
This would in effect be making a law "retro-active". I find if funny that a law proffesor would make that mistake
you completely misunderstood firmage here. he is not talking about law here. he is referring to the sad rhetoric of defining legit marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Okay, so I'm to understand now that anyone who takes a stance on any issue -- say, someone who thinks we should grant citizenship to anyone that steps foot into our country (b/c that's how they interpret the constitution) -- is a self-righteous, self-appointed ... etc.
wrong again. he's referring to the various signers of the recent appeal to amend the constitution. he's pointing out the assumptions they carry that their personal religious beliefs are enough grounds to over-rule others' beliefs and amend the constitution.
I'm at a lost as to why someone can't have an opinion in opposition without name calling ... it's a really sad comment on american democracy.
it's one thing having an opinion on homosexual and polygamists. it's another thing those opinions as creedal weapons to oppress others and/or strip them (or keep from them) their rights.
Unless he does it ... I believe the commandment was to kill the caananites, every last man woman AND child. -- Let me guess, that scripture doesn't fit well with "modern" thinking and so therefor must be wrong, badly interpreted, made up, ... whatever else.
harold b. lee once said that any belief, *doctrine*, scripture, or words of a church leader should be measured against god's love. if they are incompatible, then god's love wins. i say they are incompatible, and i have yet to see an argument that reconciles this scripture with god's love for all children.
Then why is he limiting it to HIS interpretation???
explain. i don't understand what you are saying.
Under this very document aren't we guaranteed the freedom of speech? The very freedom that the church is using, the very freedom that he is attacking???
he isn't attacking free speech. he is attacking the speech itself (we all do it). he is attacking the rhetoric that seeks out to take away the rights of others. he is attacking language that seeks to promote hate and inequality in the name of god. there is a huge difference between attacking free speech and attack a speech.
ryan, why do you are keep using the term "philosophy" as if it is some sort of odd satanic practice. it's called thinking. you do it all the time. that's all it is. there is nothing wrong with thinking.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion...I agree there are important similarities to consider between same-sex marriage and polygamy, and Firmage makes good points, as far as being open-minded (i.e. hostility to both is mainly societal, impelled by religion, and both have to do with personal relationships to some extent).
ReplyDeleteI just want to point out that there are complications involved. In general, I am in favor of 'rights' and 'live and let live' and 'don't prosecute victimless crimes.' But there is a difference between wanting to live a certain lifestyle and wanting to be eligible for state benefits of marriage. For example, a lot of polygamists don't even want state legal recognition (i.e. they don't want legally valid marriage licenses for each spouse). All they want is to be able to live the lifestyle; but doing so makes them a bigamist.
Gays on the other hand can generally practice a homosexual lifestyle without worrying about being arrested (especially after the Sup Ct struck down Texas' sodomy law). What they want is legal marriage or at least something pretty much equivalent (civil unions), and all that that implies.
So, I'm not saying either is more or less worthy of societal acceptance...just that there are differences, and both seem to be at different stages and have different goals.
APJ
"natural law is a description of what has happened, not what will (or will not) necessarily happen. natural law changes all the time. it's called science. hypothesis are made, they are tested, they are adjusted, and they repeat the process. anomalies are almost always found and require hypothesis to be tested."
ReplyDeleteYou should stick to what you and your philosphy devoted buddies do best, talk for the sake of hearing yourselves talk while thinking you save the world, instead of delving into actual science where you don't have any idea as to what is actually happening. As for your little tidbit about two women "theoretically" being able to conceive, that's just it, it's theoretical. Sure, you can implant the nucleus of an egg into another egg but it's not going to do anything, it doesn't possess the correct enzymes. If you include these enzymes then the zygote still becomes too large and self-destructs. For my comment about philosphy, I understand it's necessary to think about things and consider what is going on in the world around you, but when all you do is that (i.e. are a philosphy major) I think you're a pretty big waste of time because you become so wrapped up in "the argument" that you're just talking and using your "different language" (i.e. big words that only philosphers and sociologists use so they can feel important whilst talking amongst themselves and feel like others are dumb for not knowing them).
some guy:
ReplyDeleteisn't it easy to hide behind anonymity as you ignorantly criticize someone.
instead of delving into actual science where you don't have any idea as to what is actually happening.
oooh. please tell me where i am wrong. i am always eager to learn.
As for your little tidbit about two women "theoretically" being able to conceive, that's just it, it's theoretical. Sure, you can implant the nucleus of an egg into another egg but it's not going to do anything, it doesn't possess the correct enzymes. If you include these enzymes then the zygote still becomes too large and self-destructs.
the process (thought unnamed) is similar to parthenogenesis. Scientists have successfully combined the eggs of two mice to create an embryo. Though it required
a gentically modified mouse to produce the right eggs, a similar process is not outside the bounds of possibility. Will it ever be used to create humans, I doubt it... but our doubts are often betrayed.
but when all you do is that (i.e. are a philosphy major) I think you're a pretty big waste of time because you become so wrapped up in "the argument" that you're just talking and using your "different language"
and i think you suck monkey dick.
(i.e. big words that only philosphers and sociologists use so they can feel important whilst talking amongst themselves and feel like others are dumb for not knowing them).
or biologists, or chemists, or doctors, or computer engineers, or dentists, or auto mechanics, or economists, or clergy, or surveyors, or architects, or lawyers, or archeologists, or geologists, or psychologists, or electricians, or truck drivers, or car racers, or constructionists, or masons, or business managers, or politicians, or.. etc.
Every trade, profession, or specialized group has their own jargon or vernacular (your "big words that only _________ use). I don't feel like others are dumb for not knowing philosophical language, just as I don't feel dumb for not knowing what the hell my auto-mechanic friends are always talking about. Even in philosophy, I am often at a lost when talking with my more continental friends. I only become an idiot in their eyes when I try to wrongly accuse them of something or another due to my lack of understanding their terminology.
Narrator:
ReplyDeleteare you at all interested in these issues or just like being the 'smug minority'? I usually enjoy what you post, but the way you treat those who disagree is distracting to say the least.
Case in point: I leave a comment that actually addresses the issues; instead of engaging in a dialogue with me or any other commenter, you choose to reduce yourself to accusing someone with whom you disagree that he sucks monkey dick. It makes it look like you aren't really in this for any other purpose than to argue and belittle others (sitting back, sipping on non-alcoholic beer, pointing out what you see as hypocrisies around you, and then tearing down anyone who dare disagree). I understand the mindset of being more liberal than average in Provo County, but are you really comfortable with the depths you've sank to, trying to maintain your 'i'm surrounded by idiots' self-image?
APJ
apj,
ReplyDeletei am a pompous ass. i know that well and it's not a good thing.
i guess i've gotten tired of the whole "philosophy is evil, "you are anti-mormon," "you should just follow the prophets," "i am more spiritual than you," and other similar critiques that i eventually got fed up and pointed out the stupidity in their critiques.
i guess, i let my frustrations take control of me when i write. it's much easier for me to write when i've got something fanning the fire.
i'm tempted to only allow blogger-registered persons to comment my blog. much of my frustrations rise from those who want to throw out generalized attacks of 'evil philosophy,' heresy, and such as anonymous cowards. unfortunately, banning those posts would also limit those (such as yourself) who want to provide intellectual comments and critique.
if you go to provopulse.com, you can see my fall from grace as i got further and further frustrated with the antics of several happey vallians. being nice failed, just as being a dick fails. the latter is just so much easier.
apj (again),
ReplyDeletein response to your prior post. lynn wardle of byu (who is much the poster-child for anti-gay-marriage law) made the closest to what i may call a good arguement against gay-marriage. it basically deals with marriage (and its associated rights) being a state sponsorship of the relationship. basically, if the state feels that certain relationships are more beneficial for the state, then the state has the right to support such relationships (with benefits and rights and such). i have to basic problems with this arguement. the first is that the appeal to the benefit provided to the state is based on problematic (and often foundationally faulty) sociological grounds. the second is that the line between providing rights to one group (heterosexual couples) and withholding rights (gay/plural relationships) is a very blurred and obscure line, and i'm not sure if one can be drawn without breaching the other.
as far as polygamy goes, i know that there are at least two reasons why many polygamists choose to not seek for a legalization of their practice. the first is their fear that a legalization of plural marriage would result in a defilement of what they feel to be a sacred rite (much as heterosexual couples have done a great job of destroying the concept of marriage). second, it's a fight no longer worth fighting. they have lost the fight time and time again. trying to fight it only brings attention to them which then leads to the state penalizing them.
another aspect that greatly distinguishes the two, is the odd (and very hypocritical) stance that the state of utah wages against polygamists. under their lds-driven and supported anti-bigamy laws, a gay couple can have a private ceremony, call themselves married and all that as long as they acknowledge they are not legally married. a married man can cheat on his spouse, lie to her while he is secretly having sex with a dozen men and women every night, and the state will do nothing about it. a man who is legally married (or even not legally married- like hte gay couple) and has another non-legal marriage ceremony with another wife (with his first wife's approval) will be thrown into jail.
oddly the state allows more rights to a gay couple than a polygamous relationship in the state of utah. one of many reasons why i am starting to believe that the lds church's position against gay marriage is a guise to constitionally ban what it really fears - the legalization of polygamy.
narrator:
ReplyDeletei totally agree with your assessment, and think it amplifies what i was getting at. nearly every person i've talked to (granted mainly non-members, but some members) seem to think that polygamists are seeking state sanctioned marriage...not realizing that the state has criminalized a lifestyle because it 'appears' too much like traditional marriage.
there is certainly a hypocrisy that exists in the state bigamy laws (and selective enforcement of them). for example, a married man who is estranged from his wife and moves in with his girlfriend is certainly a 'bigamist' under state law (cohabitation); but honestly, is he going to be arrested? no, the worst thing will be that the judge handling a future divorce takes it into account.
on the other hand, from my observations, the state usually doesn't go after someone solely for bigamy. There is usually a 'sex with minor' or 'spousal abuse' charge tacked on as well. so one could argue that the state is really only going after polygamists who also do those horrible things that many (rightly or wrongly) associate with polygamy (child brides, oppression of women, etc). kind of like when the cops try to bust a drug dealer they will tack on as many charges as they can, but really the initial reason for arrest was the drug dealing.
but the obvious counter-argument is why criminalize a lifestyle that is not inherently bad? you can still get the 'bad guys' for statutory rape, domestic violence, etc. should peaceful, law-abiding polygamists have to live in fear that, for some unrelated offense, their lifestyle will be brought up as a criminal charge? i don't think so.
one further hypocrisy: these sex with minor charges. Most of the time, the guy could legally marry the girl (14 is the age in UT, right?). But because he's already married, he just 'spiritually' marries her. the legally-aware polygamist should perhaps divorce his of-age spouse, marry the minor legally, and still continue in the same relationship with the older/previous spouse. same situation, but now 'more' legal than before. does the state still go after it, since the abhorrent sex with a minor is now legal? (obviously this doesn't address sex with a minor under age 14).
one final consideration: most LDS and conservative christians fail to grasp that, while hoping to pass their DOMA amendments, they are giving more power to the state to regulate marriage. The state *allows* religious ministers to marry others right now. What will these DOMA-supporters say when the state revokes that authority and says that only justices of the peace can perform marriages and any other marriage (even if just for religious significance) is not allowed? Sealings in the temple would be criminalized, and the LDS would either have to change doctrine or go to a foreign country (a la 1847 trek west). A semi-preposterous hypothetical, but analogous to what the state does to polygamy I think.
APJ
ps: sorry if i came across as a jerk. i really do enjoy your blog, and totally understand your mindset. when i went to byu, i went to b of m class with a goatee one time after summer, thinking it would make some statement, or whatever; it didn't satiate my inner-rebelious fire; so i went out and got two ctr tattoos on my shoulders; one with a halo, one going up in flames. so far, no regrets, despite pres hinckley's warning that the day will come when i will. my only purpose in leaving that comment was to let you know what it looked like to an outside observer, and how it may, depending on your goals, diminish your message. but hey, it's your blog...
APJ
oh, and a response to the lynn wardle argument for state-sponsored marriage (in addition to the 2 you make):
ReplyDeleteeven if the state 'feels' marriage is good, it has to come up with at least some rational argument for excluding a group from getting those rights. 'marriage being ordained by God as evidenced by Adam and Eve' is not sufficient. As for the argument that marriage is for breeders (i.e. gays can never make kids, and that is the point of marriage), well, it doesn't explain why people who can't have or have no desire to have kids can marry with no questions. Not only does this point out the inconsistency of the argument, but also lays the groundwork for a claim of 'discrimination' (as in a class of people being denied equal protection of law). If the state is saying 'marriage is for breeders, but we're willing to make exceptions for anyone who is not gay' it sounds like discrimination by the state.
APJ