It’s a human trait to come up with stories to explain the things we see: we are pattern-matching machines, we like things to make sense as part of a continuum, and we like to connect events, places and people… even when there is nothing there to connect them. We notice coincidences and assign them way too much meaning, and we decide to ignore the times when our just-so stories fail to match reality. Stories make us comfortable, in that they help us as we try to convince ourselves that in the end of the telling the world makes sense, there is an arc, there is a finale that will wrap things up neatly.

Even then there is no guarantee that it will. In fact, quite the contrary, as history has proven over and over and over again.

We love telling stories, we love hearing them, and we love making them up almost just as much. The problems arise when we start taking our stories seriously enough to hate, ostracize, torment and kill other people for not believing them, when we’ve forgotten that they were made up in the first place.

Stories have lessons, stories have morals. Those are good things to listen to and learn from, and they are fun to tell. But the moment you start arguing about how there really WAS a ruler and the clothes WERE real and we have archaeological PROOF of the city where the ruler once ruled… well, I’m afraid that you’ve lost the point of the story.

Which was, at the end of the day, that the Emperor was wearing no clothes, and at one time we were all afraid to call him on it.

Romney’s opponents for the GOP nomination seem to be really pushing the argument that he is “too similar” to Obama on policies and positions. Not a stretch, to be fair, especially with the PPACA front and center in the news. Rick Santorum in particular, especially in his recent “bullshit” rant against NTY reporter Jeff Zeleny, appears to be hammering the issue that Romney is a terrible candidate because of perceived similarities between the PPACA and the Massachusetts healthcare insurance reform law that Romney signed.

But considering he’s the GOP frontrunner, it seems to me that Romney’s opponents are making the case that the vast majority of the country apparently wants either Obama… or someone who is not very different from Obama. So they are setting up the November vote to be a decision on whether people want to vote for the (current President) Democrat Obama or the Republican version of Obama, who is kind of similar if you squint.

Is that such a great position for the GOP to take, with Romney all but guaranteed the nomination?  Is that the message they really want to send?  That, hey, maybe this Obama guy’s ideas aren’t that bad after all, since we’re sending in a nominee that is kind of hard to distinguish from the guy who is already in the position…  It seems to undermine the call for change quite effectively.

Not that I am complaining.  Imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery.

I actually think Santorum was right in calling out Zeleny: his statements about Romney being “worst Republican” seem to have always been in the context of positioning him as the least-desirable candidate to go up against Obama on healthcare, because of Romney’s MA healthcare initiative. The selective quoting is something we decry all the time when Fox News pulls quotes from our candidates out of context, so it’s fair play (and the right thing to do) to call out the NYT for doing it.

Don’t get me wrong, he’s still a bigoted ultra-right-wing fundie who shouldn’t even be running for President of his local homeowner’s association, so it’s not like I’m changing my mind on his candidacy.

I may be wrong about the contextual statement, and if anyone can show me video or audio of Santorum calling Romney the worst Republican outside of specific comparative contexts of “worst”, then I’ll reassess. But calling Zeleny out was correct.

The manner in which he did it, by shouting “bullshit!” over a dozen open mics? Well, there’s a lot to quibble about there, but his anger and profanity in a forum like that is a sign of something deeper that each side will spin their own way: his supporters as an example of his passion and frustration with the media, his detractors as a stain on his “family values conservative” image, and an example of how he doesn’t have the temperament and level-headedness to lead the country.

It doesn’t change my opinion much, since I find so many of his opinions and positions to be execrable, no matter which words he chooses to describe them. And I’ve used the same word to describe his overall campaign, so I can’t really complain much.

An excellent idea, then AND now. (Photo credit: typebalance)

If you think that you would be better off in a world where there were no separation of Church and State, this is a useful graphic.  The National Post has put up a breakdown of the world’s major religions.  It is by no means exhaustive, and it provides the misleading impression that large groups like “Catholics” and “Orthodox” Christianities or “Hinduistic” Eastern religions are coherent and homogeneous.  They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, and have hundreds upon hundreds of subdivisions, sects and partitions, each with their own sets of contradictory (sometimes opposing) beliefs.

Remember: no matter what religion you believe in, the vast majority of people in the world think you are wrong.  Don’t assume that if we remove the wall of separation between Church and State that it will be your religion that everyone agrees to impose on the rest of the population; you may end up with a set of laws that force you to follow the religious law of a group with which you don’t especially agree.  This is why the Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) are SO critical your YOUR religious freedom.  It is up to you and I, no matter what our personal beliefs, to ensure that this separation continues.

Big boats turn slowly, but once they start…

This is interesting because, while the bill to repeal gay marriage in NH was sponsored by Republicans (as it always seems to be the case), there were 109 GOPers who voted against it, in opposition to the party’s own platform in the state. One wonders where they were a couple of years ago when the laws making same-sex marriage legal were passed along pretty strict party lines. I hope it just means they have noticed that NH has not become a cesspool of sin, and that they feel their marriages have not suddenly become undermined by providing equal rights to all.

One could be cynical and note that since the Ninth Circuit decision on Prop 8’s constitutionality, even the Republicans in the NH House realized that they couldn’t sustain opposition to same-sex marriage once you already had people married in the state: it would create a group of citizens with different (fewer) rights than others, which would be unconstitutional. But it’s hard to not be cynical when so many of the Republicans who voted against same-sex marriage in 2007-2008 are now suddenly saying things like “small government” and “private rights” and “these people are just like you and me”. This wasn’t also true back then?

And yet here in MN, we’re not even where NH was in 2007: here we’re fighting to defeat amendments that would make same-sex marriage unconstitutional, not fighting to pass laws that would make it legal. Progress comes slowly, and unevenly distributed.

Live free or die!

Related articles

• New Hampshire struck down efforts to repeal same-sex marriage (haleybehre.wordpress.com)
• New Hampshire gay marriage repeal fails (reuters.com)
• Gay-Marriage Rollback Fails in NH (thedailybeast.com)

It’s good to finally hear from the doctors, even if it’s anonymously: this from a guest post over at John Scalzi’s blog.

I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as “rape”. If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.

There is no POSSIBLE justification for these laws that doesn’t fall completely afoul for Fourth Amendment of protection of privacy and dignity. To force doctors to act as agents of the state and violate a woman’s body in a medically unnecessary way is so beyond the pale of what is acceptable that it should force the immediate removal from office of anyone who proposed or supported the law, on the basis that they are unfit to serve the public’s interest.

Wonder why we need separation of Church and State? Well, here’s a good example, just from tonight. Is this the kind of leadership you want? Lies about being forbidden from praying “in public places” and telling non-Christians to “get out” of the United States? Sprinkle in some ugly homophobia and you’ve got yourself a sermon.

What I always find amusing about these videos is that they are asking their god to “allow the man in office You want” (meaning Rick Santorum in this case), but they claim to know their own god’s will well enough to assume that has not already happened. How can they claim to know?

By the way, here’s a tax-exempt organization that is in dire need of losing that status, which doesn’t allow them to organize for or support any candidate. You pay taxes so that Pastor Dennis Terry and the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church don’t have to. But if you’re not a Christian, you’re not welcome in his version of this country.

You’re welcome in my version, though.  And I vote too.

Join us on Thursday 22nd at Sweeney’s Saloon to discuss this and many other separation issues!

Do you enjoy beverages? OH BOY, I DO!

Do you enjoy conversation? OH MY GOSH YOU TOO IT’S LIKE ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS EVER!

Do you want to have beverages and conversations with people who are interested in or working on Separation of Church and State issues in Minnesota? OF COURSE I… WAIT, ARE YOU TRYING TO SELL ME SOMETHING?

Nope, just inviting you to come have a chat with us on Thursday March 22nd over at Sweeney’s Saloon (96 Dale Street North, Saint Paul, MN in the Ashland Room). No agenda, just freewheeling conversation and discussions, along with a fine selection of beverages for consumption. OK, THAT DOES KINDA SOUND LIKE FUN…

Doesn’t it, though? How about we meet there at 6:30? WHAT, IN THE MORNING? I CAN’T MAKE IT OUT THERE THAT EARLY, AND I HAVE TO GET THE KIDS TO SCHOOL.

No, in the evening. Post-meridian. OH, THAT’S A MUCH BETTER IDEA. WHAT SHOULD I WEAR?

Casual attire that will allow for movement in case we break out into a spontaneous dance flash mob. I’LL WEAR MY UNITARD THEN.

No. No, don’t do that. Just bring your questions for the board of MN Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and have fun. OK THEN. SEE YOU THURSDAY!

Cool, I’m looking forward to it. Will I still be talking to myself then? BOY WILL YOU EVER!

OK then.

Here‘s a perfect example of what I was referencing in my previous note, lest anyone believe I am tilting against imaginary windmills.

Anyone who uses the argument of “how do you reconcile the increase in order and complexity described by evolution with the second law of thermodynamics” understands neither concept. It’s a potentially interesting question for a beginning student to ask when first learning about either idea, but to pose it as a “challenge” to evolution supporters as if it were somehow an unanswered mystery that casts doubt on the theory is either chutzpah of the highest order, or a demonstration of a lack of intellectual curiosity that is simply staggering.

But here is an “authority” figure setting up his followers to look like fools by making them think that these are intelligent questions to ask, and not simple questions that can be answered in practically any introductory text in biology, cosmology and physics.  He wants students to ask these questions in class, not because he wants them to learn the real answers, but because he believes scientists and teachers cannot answer them.  Does he know the truth? Or (the more charitable explanation) is he just plain ignorant and/or unable to crack open a book? And with either answer, do you trust his authority on any other field of inquiry given his attitude towards this one? And is the command to “Insist on evidence not just explanation” at the beginning of the list not an example of incredible irony?

The appropriate response to that command is to ask for the standard of evidence he uses to demand acceptance of the story of Moses and the burning bush, and to say that we are, in all likelihood, able to meet that standard and far, far more.

I wish I could say that these are the outliers, the exceptions, the lunatic fringe: but according to Gallup polls, only 39% of people in the US accept that “humans being, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals”. A question that 99.99% of experts in biology and related fields accept as well-established fact, like scientists who depend on the truth of evolution to work on vaccines that keep the other 61% alive and healthy.

But it’s “just a theory”. Like “germs”, or “gravity”.

If you choose “willful ignorance” as your standard of inquiry, at least have the decency to keep it to yourself, instead of smearing it around the people who look to you for answers. And when a person with this “authority” gives you his opinion on contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution, healthcare, what should or should not be included in standard textbooks in public schools, how we should interpret the Constitution and on what principles we should base our laws, feel free to look them in the eye and gracefully thank them for their opinions; but don’t feel any obligation to be anything other than completely skeptical about their claims of knowledge.

There are scenarios where a point you have made in a debate has been proven to be not just incorrect, but wildly so; moreover you may come to realize that the argument you used has been known to be incorrect for a very, very long time.

If this argument was given to you by an authority figure of any sort who claims to be a knowledgeable character in their field of inquiry, there are two options:

1) This authority figure is wildly misinformed. And yet they gave you this particular argument with as much confidence, certainty and authority as they present other ones in their field. So the question arises as to how much they really know of their field of expertise, and how much weight to give to their other opinions, when their confidence seems so misplaced.  Or,

2) This authority figure is knowingly lying to you. And potentially doing so to rile you up and offend your sensibilities through the presentation of false cases against the opposing side of the debate, so that you may rise to the defense of his side.

In either case, how much confidence do you place in that person’s authority in the future?

If your authority figures have been giving you incorrect, misinformed, outrageously outdated arguments against (let’s use a couple of recent examples) evolution or same-sex marriage, and you suddenly realize this… you have to reach the conclusion as to whether they are wrong  (and not JUST wrong but egregiously, willfully ignorant), or they are knowingly misleading you.

Either way, it should lead you to significant pause as to whether you take their opinion in other matters to be of value or not.

Two recent real examples:

– “If evolution is real, where is the fossil record? Where are the transitional fossils?”

I see you as a grown-up person, and I see pictures of a baby, and you expect me to believe that these two people are one and the same? Of course they cannot be, they are completely different. They’re not even the same size!

Oh, sure you can show me a picture of someone you claim is you when you were slightly older that this child. But why are there no pictures of “you” in between this baby form and this slightly older child form? There are still two many differences in between the two for me to believe that they are the same one. Oh, here is yet another picture you claim to be intermediate between these forms, but where are the pictures IN BETWEEN these two? How can you expect me to believe that these are the same person?

No matter how many pictures you show me, there will always be a missing “transitional photograph”.

If your authority or leader is using the “no transitional fossil record” argument, then they are willfully ignorant of biology and its history, or at the very least are demonstrating unwillingness to learn even the most rudimentary facts of the position they oppose. Is that an attitude of learning and openness? Or does it demonstrate only dogmatic and slavish dedication to a “truth” that rejects any and all opposition, regardless of mountains of proof?

– “If we don’t legislate against same-sex marriage, then the government can force us to marry gay people in our church!”

No. And the person who gave you that argument is either ignorant or taking advantage of your naivete to rile you up with an argument they know you will find offensive. And let me point out that if the government were taking a position to force you to perform ceremonies in your church that are against your beliefs and that harm no one else, I would be standing with you demanding that they stop: that’s why I believe in Separation of Church and State in the first place.  But you have to understand that in this case, you are being manipulated to advance a political cause: you are being lied to in order to secure your support.  And in doing so, you are also being placed in a position, through intentional or accidental lies, to demonize, reject and oppose a group that intends you no harm.

These are positions and arguments that “authority” figures are giving today.  These are positions that I have had used against me in debate in recent months, by well-meaning people who are being lied to.  Positions that, if you knew better, you would find ridiculous in their simplicity, but you are not being encouraged to know better by the people who gave them to you.  Arguments that you are expected to use because you must believe them, since they came from a person in authority, and you are expected to never question.  Arguments that are so easy to dismiss, precisely because it takes only a minimum amount of effort to discredit as uninformed, using easily accessible and available information.

And yet, given to you nonetheless. So which is it?  Did your authority figure give you these arguments because they were so disinterested in learning anything new that they are themselves unquestioningly parroting positions they were given as gospel?  Or do they already know the arguments are invalid, but decided that you probably weren’t smart or curious enough to find out whether they were true or not?

Which do you think it is?  Which would you prefer it to be?  And in either case, how do you intend to respond to their other claims of authority now that you know?