Monday, October 24, 2011

P.Z. Myers and "freedom of conscious"

P.Z. Myers has an amusing post:
Lavender becomes us
October 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm PZ Myers
Minnesota Atheists are highlighted in Lavender magazine. The reason? Gays and atheists often find themselves fighting on the same side in battles against the Religious Righteous, and Minnesota Atheists recently filed a friend of the court brief in a pending argument against the odious “Defense of Marriage Act”.
The amicus brief filed by Minnesota Atheists supports the couples in their effort to get rid of the law and argues the unconstitutionality of DOMA, noting the law’s theological basis.
The Minnesota State Constitution, with clauses guaranteeing freedom of conscious and freedom of religion, and the U.S. Constitution, which establishes freedom of religion in the First Amendment and equal protection for all in the Fourteenth Amendment, are violated by DOMA, according to the brief.
Berkshire said the religious roots of the law are grounded in “conservative Christian” views and leave those who have differing beliefs out in the cold.
“[DOMA is] a religious law that’s not just a difference of opinion,” Berkshire said. “It’s a religious law that’s harming people.” The amicus brief gives several sectarian arguments why same-sex marriage is considered unacceptable by some religious institutions, but says there is no secular reason to bar same-sex couples from opportunities given to heterosexual couples.
There those atheists go, making the world more tolerant and wiser one step at a time.

Minnesotans are certainly free to be conscious and to practice their religion. Practicing religion while unconscious is apparently not specifically protected in the Minnesota State Constitution, although perhaps it's incorporated in a penumbra.

The "religious roots of the law" are just the sovereignty of the citizens of Minnesota, a process colloquially known as "democracy". People vote their conscience. Democracy is circumvented when ideologues use the courts, rather than the legislature, to make law. Rule by judges is oligarchy, not democracy.

Traditional law regarding marriage-- that it is intrinsically heterosexual-- obviously isn't a violation of the rights of gays, who share exactly the same rights as all Americans. Those would be the right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc. The prerogative to marry anyone you want has never been a right, much to the disappointment of polygamists, pet owners, and pederasts. Law governs marriage, and marriage-without-borders has never and nowhere been law.

The right of citizens of Minnesota-- gay or straight-- to vote in accordance with their beliefs-- religious or irreligious-- is protected by the Constitution. As long as Minnesotans remain conscious.

42 comments:

  1. The prerogative to marry anyone you want has never been a right, much to the disappointment of polygamists, pet owners, and pederasts.

    Yeah, because if we allow same-sex marriage, we'll have to allow people to marry their children and their dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Date Line Massachusetts – Gay marriage allowed for 7 years and virtually no-one has even noticed.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exactly. Democracy is majority rule. If those Unpopular Minorities don't like that, well, then they should've made sure to be more of them!

    ReplyDelete
  4. @modus:

    Yea. Maybe we should change democracy so the fewest votes win.

    How about this: we have democracy with majority rule, but we reserve a few (maybe ten) rights that are so important that everybody has them, like freedom of speech, religion, etc.

    Great system.

    The only problem is if some assholes started to assert fake rights, and gamed the system to circumvent democracy.

    Bummer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @anon:

    [Yeah, because if we allow same-sex marriage, we'll have to allow people to marry their children and their dogs.]

    Why not, exactly? "Ick, it's unnatural, it's unprecedented" don't count.

    Why can't you marry yourself? Self-love is endemic. Why must it remain closeted?

    Why can't you marry inanimate objects? Marry ideas? Marry entire cities? Marry fractionately (We're 23% married!)Marry your mom, dad, sister, brother? Marry companies (Nabisco and I dated for quite a while...)

    Make your case, without using natural law or tradition arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why not dog marriage or group marriage or child marriage?

    The simple answer is that very few people want any of those, and none of them garner any significant public support. I know you don’t like it, but the court must take into account evolving societal norms when deciding issues not explicitly addressed in the constitution. Fortunately, despite the efforts of religious conservatives, the tide of history is toward more liberty and justice.

    If 50 years from now, a significant minority of people where living as if in group marriages, wanted the legal protections of marriage, and had the support of a plurality of their fellow citizens, I’m sure we will have a vigorous public debate on the subject along with scrutiny from the courts. If on the other-hand, 50 years from now it’s still just a handful of Mormons with very little public support, they are not likely to sway the court.

    In the case of dog marriage or child marriage it could be argued that the relationship can’t be consensual because of the unequal and therefore almost certainly coercive nature of the relationship.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why can't you marry inanimate objects? Marry ideas? Marry entire cities? Marry fractionately (We're 23% married!)Marry your mom, dad, sister, brother? Marry companies (Nabisco and I dated for quite a while...)

    Because it doesn't make sense. Why can't ideas drive cars? Why don't walruses pay taxes?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @KW:

    [The simple answer is that very few people want any of those, and none of them garner any significant public support.]

    So you agree that democracy, rather than use of courts to enforce fake rights, is the proper approach? I agree.

    [I know you don’t like it, but the court must take into account evolving societal norms when deciding issues not explicitly addressed in the constitution.]

    Actually, the 9th and 10 amendments quite clearly lay out the principle that issues not addressed in the Constitution are not to be adjudicated by the government. The Constitution specifically delineates government power; it's not a free pass.

    On the issue of "evolving societal standards", that is what the legislature is for. Separation of powers, ya know. Courts are supposed to interpret and apply law, not blow with the wind.

    What if societal standards were "evolving" in a way you don't like? A lot more people don't like Muslims following 9-11. Should the courts curtail the rights of Muslims because of the "evolution of societal standards" since 2001? What if more people become racist? Should the court overturn Brown?

    [Fortunately, despite the efforts of religious conservatives, the tide of history is toward more liberty and justice.]

    Yea. Religious conservatives like Rev Martin Luther King (a fundamentalist Republican) had nothing to do with progress.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @anon:

    [Because it doesn't make sense. Why can't ideas drive cars? Why don't walruses pay taxes?]

    Because it doesn't make sense. Why can't ideas drive cars? Why don't walruses pay taxes? Why can't men marry men?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Atheists are a very special breed.

    They support Darwinian evolution and at the same time they support same sex marriage.

    Way to go!

    ReplyDelete
  11. PZ Myers is a failed evolutionary experiment. That makes him a living fossil...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @KW:

    [If 50 years from now, a significant minority of people where living as if in group marriages, wanted the legal protections of marriage, and had the support of a plurality of their fellow citizens, I’m sure we will have a vigorous public debate on the subject along]

    I'm all for vigorous public debates. That's democracy. I like it.

    [with scrutiny from the courts.]

    What you really mean is that the minority will use the courts to force changes on society when they lose in the democratic process. That's wrong. What could a court possibly contribute to the debate over polygamy in 50 years? Just make up new "rights" and force it down citizens' throats. Grossly corrupt. The legislature is where societal standards are expressed.

    [If on the other-hand, 50 years from now it’s still just a handful of Mormons with very little public support, they are not likely to sway the court.]

    Why are they trying to sway courts? This a democracy, not a judicial oligarchy. They should try to sway voters. You know, We the People.

    [In the case of dog marriage or child marriage it could be argued that the relationship can’t be consensual because of the unequal and therefore almost certainly coercive nature of the relationship.]

    What if the dog wants it-- "he always humps my leg, so we decided to make it official".

    Why not marry yourself? Why not marry an inanimate object?

    Let the fun begin!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Michael asks "Why not let men marry men?"

    Why not indeed - since there's simply no argument with which to oppose it. If there's no reason to restrict a freedom, let's stop restricting it.

    Gay marriage (1) mirrors a perfectly natural phenomena found in many species - same sex pair bonding (2) is consenual so long as everyone is of age and competent (3) harms nobody else and (4) is inevitable given the success of the GLBT community over the past few decades at sweeping away so much irrational societal prejudice against them.

    So why fight it?

    Do we limit their freedoms because the Bible says homosexuality is bad? That's no argument, as we happily cast aside many Biblical rules as morally repugnant today. So we can just toss Biblical condemnation of homosexuality into the same rubbish bin that we cast much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

    I count several same-sex couples among my friends. I had the pleasure of recently attending a lovely gay wedding. I'm watching multiple children adopted by gay and lesbian parents grow into wonderful, caring people. There is not one bad thing in this picture except the archaic prejudices of a few social dinosaurs.

    If you want to stand on the same side of this argument as Fred Phelps, then I feel sorry for you. But the core of the debate is over, the paradigm has shifted, the social revolution has happened and any bloodshed has been stoically borne by the GLBT community with no retaliation.

    Society has matured on this topic. Let's let the process reach its inevitable conclusion and give GLBT couples the same rights and freedoms that other Americans enjoy. We simply have no reasons left to do otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  14. RickK:

    I too have gay friends and relatives, and know several gay couples who are very nice people and people I respect greatly.

    This is a debate about marriage, not about sexuality. I believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but I do not believe that caring and support and (non-sexual) love between same-sex people is sinful. In fact, just the opposite. I think that it his laudable.

    I believe in God, and I believe that marriage is a sacrament. I believe that lifelong union between a man and a woman is a reflection of something transcendent.

    You don't share that belief. We'll fight the issue out in law and public opinion.

    I believe that we will know the truth when we die. I have a very different understanding of life and morality than you do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike Egnor "The only problem is if some assholes started to assert fake rights, and gamed the system to circumvent democracy."
    Yeah! Darn Lovings! Darn them to heck! "Due process"? "Equal protection"? Pah!

    Pépé "They support Darwinian evolution and at the same time they support same sex marriage."
    You do know that there are gay couples raising children, right?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Modus:

    ["Due process"? "Equal protection"?]

    Redefining marriage has nothing to do with due process or equal protection. Gays and straights have exactly the same rights. The right to "marry" someone of the same sex isn't one of those rights.

    The issue here is the redefinition of marriage, which is not within the jurisdiction of any court.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike Egnor "Gays and straights have exactly the same rights."
    Obviously. And before Loving, in numerous states white people and black people had "exactly the same rights" vis-a-vis marriage. That didn't make it right.

    "The right to 'marry' someone of the same sex isn't one of those rights."
    Obviously. A gay man has exactly the same rights as a straight one to marry your daughter. Discuss.

    "The issue here is the redefinition of marriage, which is not within the jurisdiction of any court."
    Webster's Dictionary, 1877:
    Pg174: Marriage, state or condition of being married.
    Marry, to be joined in wedlock.
    Pg303: Wedlock, married state.

    ...
    On a side note, would you be okay with civil unions providing them the same legal protections that marriage does?

    ReplyDelete
  18. “Redefining marriage has nothing to do with due process or equal protection. Gays and straights have exactly the same rights. The right to "marry" someone of the same sex isn't one of those rights.”

    Oh please, straight people can marry who they want, and gay’s can’t, that’s hardly “exactly the same rights“.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're right - we have a different view of morality. I think making threats or promises about what happens after death is fundamentally and deeply immoral.

    Promising benefits or making threats about what happens after we die, predictions that nobody can ever prove.

    It's a great design for a religion. It's also a great design for a scam.

    But the two are indistinguishable - scam or religion - until after we die.

    It's perfect. Just perfect :-)

    As for your oh so generous attitude to your gay friends - you're a fraud. Their love is no different whether they're the same gender or not. But you stand on high and judge them as different. They don't have the right to get married, but you have the right to judge them and determine how they can and can't express their love.

    Yes, we have very different ideas of morality.

    Do your gay friends know that you are opposed to them getting married or having sex?

    ReplyDelete
  20. RickK:

    [You're right - we have a different view of morality. I think making threats or promises about what happens after death is fundamentally and deeply immoral.]

    Is it true?

    [Promising benefits or making threats about what happens after we die, predictions that nobody can ever prove.]

    There is nothing in life that we prove. If there is an afterlife, we'll all know in a while. If there isn't, nothing much matters, huh?

    [It's a great design for a religion. It's also a great design for a scam.]

    Is it true?

    [But the two are indistinguishable - scam or religion - until after we die.]

    You can't prove either, now. But a scam is distinguishable from a religion.

    [It's perfect. Just perfect :-)]

    Belief in ultimate unaccountability is perfect. Belief in judgement is sobering.

    [As for your oh so generous attitude to your gay friends - you're a fraud.]

    How do you know I'm a fraud?

    [Their love is no different whether they're the same gender or not.]

    Love is a very good thing, regardless of gender. Sex has moral implications, and marriage is a sacrament.

    [But you stand on high and judge them as different.]

    It's one thing that I like about atheists. They're so unjudgemental.

    [They don't have the right to get married,]

    Sure they do. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

    [but you have the right to judge them and determine how they can and can't express their love.]

    The only thing I can do is vote, like you. And express my opinion, like you.

    [Yes, we have very different ideas of morality.]

    Where does your idea of morality come from? Do you acknowledge an objective standard, independent of individual opinion?

    Do your gay friends know that you are opposed to them getting married or having sex?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @RickK:

    [Do your gay friends know that you are opposed to them getting married or having sex?]

    I don't know. I've never discussed it with them. Most straight people they know oppose gay marriage.

    Do your Christian friends know how you feel about Christianity? Are you concerned that they might? Is that why you post under a pseudonym?

    I post under my own name. I have nothing to hide.

    And you?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @modus:

    [On a side note, would you be okay with civil unions providing them the same legal protections that marriage does?]

    I support the right of any people to make contracts. I oppose civil unions, because that's a mealy-mouthed way to sneak gay marriage in the back door (no pun).

    Marriage is monogamous, heterosexual, and for life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Michael,

    I don't think that RickK is concerned that his Christian friends will find out what he thinks about Christianity from his comments on this blog. After all, your blog is so minor I'm certain the number of people reading it would be minimal. I only read it because of my fascination with the psychopathology of belief.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ KW:

    [Oh please, straight people can marry who they want, and gay’s can’t, that’s hardly “exactly the same rights“.]

    I can't marry my sister, my mother, my daughter, myself, my pet, two women, a woman already married, a woman who doesn't want to marry me. I can't now marry anyone at all, because I'm already married. And I can't marry a man.

    No one can marry whoever they want.

    This is not about rights. We have the same rights.

    This is about redefining marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @bach:

    [I don't think that RickK is concerned that his Christian friends will find out what he thinks about Christianity from his comments on this blog.]

    So why the pseudonym? Why yours?

    [After all, your blog is so minor I'm certain the number of people reading it would be minimal.]

    Think what the masses are missing!

    [I only read it because of my fascination with the psychopathology of belief.]

    I try to hold your interest.

    ReplyDelete
  26. mregnor "I support the right of any people to make contracts."
    Personal contracts only do so much. And that isn't enough.
    Personal contracts don't get one party on the healthcare plan of the other as "family". Personal contracts don't get one party in to visit the other in hospital. Personal contracts don't get the widowed party survivor's benefits and the like.

    "I oppose civil unions.."
    The government's role should end at civil union (as a contract between partners with protection, and perks, from the State). The church should then support it (or not) as marriage (or not).

    "...because that's a mealy-mouthed way to sneak gay marriage in the back door (no pun)."
    What, no lesbian puns?

    "Marriage is monogamous, heterosexual…"
    Historically, marriage was one man/many women for men of means or a contract between families for the orderly dispersal of property (which included the wife)

    "...and for life."
    …and you can get divorced right now. You won't, and you can't force others not to. Stopping gay marriage is easy for most. It will never directly effect them. Banning divorce loses you a bunch of current allies for that reason.
    Also, Del and Phyllis were together for 56 years, wed in 2008, and only split when that "for life" bit came up for one of them. If a relationship that strong, one that survived everything the world tossed at it, isn't deserving of all the protections the State provides heterosexual married couples, I don't know what is.

    "I can't marry my sister, my mother, my daughter, myself, my pet, two women, a woman already married, a woman who doesn't want to marry me."
    Inbreeding, inbreeding, inbreeding, idiotic, lacks moral agency, illegal (though I think, with some misgivings, that it should be legal), see previous, lack of consent.

    "This is not about rights. We have the same rights."
    Obviously. Should she choose, a gay man has exactly the same rights as a straight one to marry your daughter. Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pépé wrote:
    Atheists are a very special breed.

    They support Darwinian evolution and at the same time they support same sex marriage.


    What the hell are you even trying to say? It's as stupid as saying "If you believe in gravity, why don't you support death penalty?"

    ReplyDelete
  28. @modus:

    You've got some pretty strong moral beliefs. Too bad that that you have no objective standard of morality on which you can ground them. Just your opinion. Being an atheist must suck.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Egnor:
    Too bad that that you have no objective standard of morality on which you can ground them.

    Still better than grounding your morality on a work of fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @anon:

    [Still better than grounding your morality on a work of fiction.]

    If there is no objective morality, nothing is "better" than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @anon...
    Darwinism is all about passing on our genes...
    Comprendo?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Darwinism is all about passing on our genes...
    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Democracy is circumvented when ideologues use the courts, rather than the legislature, to make law. Rule by judges is oligarchy, not democracy.

    You seem to think the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It is a federal republic. Unfettered majority rule has never been the rule in the United States, and you should be glad it has not. Otherwise you, as a Catholic, would likely be prohibited from owning property, which was advocated by prominent politicians in the early history of the United States such as John Jay.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Too bad that that you have no objective standard of morality on which you can ground them. Just your opinion.

    Puts atheists one up on you. Your fairy tales don't serve as a basis for morality of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @anon:

    [You seem to think the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It is a federal republic.]

    A federal republic is a form of democratic government. The US is not a direct democracy.

    In our system of government, laws are made by legislatures, enforced by the executive, and interpreted by courts.

    Courts don't have the authority to make law under our system.

    If you want to make a social revolution, the legislature is the venue.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Courts don't have the authority to make law under our system.

    You have two problems here:

    1. The court isn't making law here. It is enforcing law. There is an existing prohibition against the types of display in question. The majority does not always get what it wants. Sorry if that bothers you, but its the way our government is structured.

    2. The United States has a common law system. This means that courts do, in fact, make law. And it is part of the way the government is supposed to work. You lack of education on the subject is apparent given that you seem not to know what a common law system is.

    ReplyDelete
  37. mregnor "@modus: You've got some pretty strong moral beliefs. Too bad that that you have no objective standard of morality on which you can ground them. Just your opinion."
    Obviously. So, which horn are you stuck on?

    "Being an atheist must suck."
    The "you're going to die" and "what little justice there is is wrought only incompletely with our own hamfisted hands" things aren't all that great, but the drinking and debauchery at the top secret atheist meetings (public library, downtown-north branch, second floor, biology section, 9-11pm Saturdays. Dress: business casual. Bring a dessert.) helps.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Just returning to this.

    Michael asked: "Do your Christian friends know of your opinion of Christianity?"

    Yes they do, or at least those who discuss such topics. They know that I object when people use religious magic as an excuse to shun science and abandon reason. And the majority of them agree with me.

    I've often been the token atheist voice in the book discussion group at our local Episcopal church that friends attend. Those are great discussions.

    As for your question if I have something to hide - no, not from my friends. But I certainly do hide my identity from the internet public, ever since I received a death threat from a crazy Christian lady. Her issue wasn't my view of Christianity, but my support of vaccination. But she referenced God and Jesus a lot in her lovely letter. Now, she happened to live in Australia. But the next one might not.

    Finally, you said: "There is nothing in life that we prove. If there is an afterlife, we'll all know in a while. If there isn't, nothing much matters, huh?"

    That is so very very sad. I look at my kids, I look at my wife, I look at my friends, I look at the beautiful woodland visible from my window and I know that what matters in life has NOTHING to do with an afterlife.

    How sad that all that you have that matters is what happens after you die. You poor man.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I know that what matters in life has NOTHING to do with an afterlife.

    Only if there is no afterlife. If there is one, and it is eternal, then the fewscore years spent on this rock in space become smaller and smaller.

    Your friends, your lovely wife, your swell kids, your awesome woodland and clear window are all subject to entropy. They will all cease. Then they will be forgotten, and eventually all trace of them will vanish, as though they had never been.

    Against the infinite eye of an unblinking cold universe, these things are all nothing. The planet itself is likely to be habitable for only 500 million more years, which is a good yawn in the universe's life.

    That this should make someone sad is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly irrelevant. If we came out of nothing, then nothing is where we're going, and the supposed idiocies of your fellow man are scarcely worth the breath to comment on.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Andrew:

    Eloquently said.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If there is no objective morality, nothing is "better" than anything else.

    There is no objective economic standards. Are all economic choices equally as good?

    Your position that without "objective" standards all choices are equally as good as another is demonstrably fallacious. That you persist in thinking it is somehow a useful argument to make just demonstrates your continued buffoonery.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Andrew:

    Yes, that was eloquent. Thanks for making the effort.

    Since I believe that there is no afterlife, I will spend my time with my lovely wife and swell kids. And when they're away, I will sit here looking at my awesome woodland through my clear window and take some time out to comment on the idiocies of a few of my fellow men, especially those fellow men who reject science and reason.

    Why?

    Because I think science and reason are crucial to maximizing our brief stay in this universe. And also because I enjoy the intellectual stimulation. So I'm going to spend some of my brief, insignificant life doing things that I enjoy.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete