TMI Tuesday on Marriage

It's been over a month since I made my last post. How am I ever supposed to be a successful blogger if I don't write an entry at least once a week?

I was originally going to write about some of the weirder news articles of the past week, but TMI Tuesday (May be NSFW) came through with some interesting subject matter that I would like to address. Yes, I know, I'm nearly a week behind on this too.

Q: Do you believe in marriage?

Personally, I think the wording of this question is a little vague. Do I believe in marriage in the sense that marriage exists? Yes. Do I believe in the virtues of marriage? No, not really. I think marriage is a social construct and any perceived virtues associated with marriage are a construct as well.

Q: What is marriage to you?

Warning: Long Rant

To be legalistic, (and this is the definition I prefer,) marriage is a social contract. From antiquity, marriage has been used to combine ownership of possessions (or transfer them outright, i.e., dowries) and cement relationships. I don't necessarily mean a relationship between two people either; marriage has just as easily cemented alliances between families.

While this is still mostly true in regards to property, I think that the concept of marriage is outdated. In fact, I think it is largely unnecessary. A lot of people ascribe spiritual attributes to marriage. I see no reason why the former cannot exist without the latter in any other loving relationship.

If marriage is a social contract between two persons, the judicial branch of government has valid reason to record such contracts, in the event of divorce or other disputes. However, I do not think governments should provide tax benefits to married persons. It is my opinion that governments provide tax benefits to married persons with the intent of a) encouraging reproduction (this is not true in all marriages) and b) creating a healthy, stable environment where children can be raised. Governments do this to ensure a source of labour, sales, and investment for the economy. In a democratic society, a strong economy benefits everyone. (At least theoretically.) However, I believe that the interests of the individual trump the interests of the majority. Thus, governments should not provide tax benefits to married persons because it is discriminatory to those who choose to remain unmarried. A simpler, more equitable solution would be to provide tax benefits to those with children.

[I recognize that this is an exercise in logic; you must accept the presuppositions for the argument to work.]

Q: If you are married, why did you do it? If you are not, why have you not married?

I'm not married. I don't think I'm old enough, nor do I have an S/O. As I wrote earlier, I think marriage is unnecessary. I sometimes quip that I won't get married until I'm at least 27.

Q: Do you believe in divorce?

Again, this is vague. We all know that divorce exists. Legal contracts are routinely rendered null and void and I see no reason why marriage should be an exception. I'm not the first to say that it would be terrible to be stuck in an unloving relationship for life.

Q: If you are divorced, why did you do it? If you have not, are there certain circumstances under which you would agree to a divorce?

I'm not divorced. There are certain circumstances under which I would agree to a divorce. Irreconcilable infidelity, for example. I say 'irreconcilable' because non-monogamous relationships can, and are, stable. Poly-amourous and swinging relationships, for example.

Q: Do you believe that same sex marriages are a threat to traditional marriages?

Until traditionalists sufficiently prove to me that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, No. In fact, until they sufficiently prove to me that marriage is sacrosanct, No. Straight people seem to have enough trouble maintaining the 'sanctity' of marriage.

I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow morning, so don't expect any posts for several weeks. I'll try to write some new material for you all while I'm away.

Perfection...

...Is a b*tch of a taskmaster.

I had a conversation with a teacher I admire very much today. The conversation was about a few overdue assignments I had (read: have) and it can essentially be broken down into this:

Him: "You deserve a good grade in this course."
Me, internally: Yeah, right.

I left the conversation in a very sour and depressed mood, despite the rash of good events that had happened to me previously. I did substantially better than the class average on an exam, I got three free books, and I won a contest. Still, I was mopey. I have an annoying tendency when I'm depressed to have thoughts of an existential and nihilistic flavour. Standard emo bullsh*t. (Go cry emo, I'm not going to give you the dignity of a capital 'e.')

To paraphrase a friend of mine, I have a preconceived image of the world and how it works (or should work) and I act irrationally when reality does not match this preconceived image. (I'm obsessive-compulsive, so sue me.)

I have a very antagonistic view as far as late assignments are concerned. If it's late, I'm not going to get any marks for it, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time with it. The problem is that this isn't the case. I can get marks for late assignments, just not as many. I don't care about the assignments. They do.

This led me to two questions. First, is my notion that late assignments are not permissible a preconceived notion that I impose on myself because of a perceived (or idealistic) social standard? Second, am I just trying to justify my actions?

I think that the first question is true. I don't think that I should receive any marks for a late assignment. Most, if not all of the student body would probably disagree. So much for the perceived social standard. I have no doubt that it's a preconceived idea. As an only child, I'm subject to the stereotype that only children have poor social skills, little or no friends, are spoiled, prodigies, and so on. Unfortunately all stereotypes have some basis in fact.

As a very young child I had no-one I would consider a 'friend' and mostly associated with adults. I think this left a lasting impression on my psyche. Specifically, I think I learned a fair number of behaviours from mimicking and to uphold myself to an exacting standard. The standards I demand of myself are neither reasonable or realistic. I fear that this is a deep-seated and irreversible behaviour, and probably the root cause of my disorder. It's frustrating, and frankly, it pisses me off. I don't blame my parents or my family, but I digress.

The implications of the second question, to me, seem worse. Do I use my belief that I should not receive marks for overdue assignments as a justification for not completing them? (Even if it is just a subconscious justification?) If this is true, then I'm only justifying my laziness. Irregardless of whether it's true or not, I still need to deal with the consequences of the first question.

I'm sure that I will be obsessive-compulsive for the rest of my natural life. But I need to break this cycle and control it if I'm going to succeed.

Of Insults, Apologies, and Haters.

I use the term "haters" in the least offensive way possible.

It's time for a long overdue blog post.

A few weeks ago, I lost my temper and I said something I'm not very proud of. I apologized at the soonest opportunity possible, but I ended up getting some interesting comments in my Honesty Box on my Facebook profile. (For those of you who don't know, Honesty Box is an application that allows other Facebook users to post anonymous comments to you. The question asked is "What do you honestly think of me?") Let's take a look, shall we?

"Hello *****, this is **** from English. I just wanted to let you know that what you did in class today was quite amazing. I will not inquire into the depths of what happened, but I just wished to let you know this. I always find your input into our class very interesting."

I liked this comment. I received it the day I made my apology, and I really needed it.

"wow... way to blow up at a teacher... you're a jack*** you know? i mean if you dont feel "challenged enough" then why the hell are you in school still anyways! WTF!"

This was posted four days after I made my apology. I'm still not quite sure what to think about it.

"then again you did apologise so its not to bad...."

This was posted the same day as the previous comment. I think it's from the same person.

"your not always right,you think you are. [snip]"

This is another one that I liked. I do know that I am not always right, no one ever is. I do like to think that I'm right (I'm biased, being me and all) but I know that I can't always be right and I know that I can't know everything. I'd be a fool if I thought otherwise. As an aside, I consider "right" and "wrong" to be subjective, abstract concepts.

Now I'm not going to say that the other party involved overreacted, even if that's what I honestly think. I was the person that let go of their self-control. What I will say is that some of the people that made the comments above can't know all the details either. Call me preachy, but I don't think you should pass judgements without considering all the information available. That rings true for me as well.

*Some of the quoted items have been altered for relevancy and to protect the identity of those involved.

Christians, Baha'i's and Buttons, Oh My!

I know a lot of people are going to ask "Why have you been criticizing Christianity so much lately?" or "Why don't you criticize a different Abrahamic religion? Why not even a non-Abrahamic religion?" Well let me try to explain things to you.

I do not necessarily believe that faith is a bad thing; it is when faith is not tempered by reason that it concerns me. I am more than willing to allow someone to hold and express their beliefs as long as they do not interfere with my rights to the same. I don't think that I would particularly mind if someone called me a "Satan worshiper" and that I would "burn in Hell" as long as they let me say how ridiculous I think that their beliefs are. Of course, if they repeatedly harassed me, I would have no compunction against taking them to civil court. If our roles were reversed, I would expect them to do the same.

Yesterday, I had a Christian evangelist tell me "I'm not tolerant and I'm proud of it." He also said "One way to God, right?" Frankly, a find this level of zealotry disturbing. I wouldn't even classify it as an extreme level of zealotry, considering what you see on the Internet and in the Middle East.

I don't buy that there is one way to God either, if there is one (which I doubt). I can see four possibilities if God does exist: God is malevolent, God is indifferent, God is omni-benevolent and our perception of God is completely inaccurate, or God is insane. If I say that God may exist, I shouldn't discount that a multitude of gods could exist either.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to address something. I want to point out that the Baha'i faith is probably one of the most tolerant I've seen. I'm not going to pick at any of their theological or metaphysical beliefs, but rather a few things that I think will create issues for the faith in the future.

1) The Baha'i faith views scientific inquiry as essential to expanding Human knowledge and deepening the faith of Baha'i adherents. Considering that I believe that God or some other divine aspect cannot be proven or disproven I find it interesting that the Baha'i faith supports scientific inquiry when historically most religions have been opposed to it. Historically, most religions are opposed to scientific inquiry because of contradictions with various beliefs within those religions. Just take a look at Galileo or Darwin. But consider this: What if the existence of a divine entity could be empirically disproven? I am sure that it would very much shake the Baha'i religion to its very core. I doubt that this could happen however, and I find it more of an interesting question to pose than something I could see becoming an issue. The one place where the Baha'i faith and science knock heads is #2.

2) The Baha'i faith rejects homosexuality. This is the one place I know of where science and the Baha'i faith have a contradiction. While the Baha'i faith teaches equality between people and the elimination of prejudices, sexual orientation is absent from their list of groups of Humans where prejudice should be eliminated. Others have said it before me, and I predict that this will cause tensions within the Baha'i faith in the future.

3) Women are excluded from serving on the Universal House of Justice. This is mostly for the same reasons as #2, with the Baha'i faith's teachings of equality and elimination of prejudice.

4) Followers believe that there will eventually be a single world government. I'm not going to deny that it could happen, but I doubt it. The closest we have come to this is the United Nations, and I doubt that we will go much farther. Groups of people with similar ideals would break off from a united world government and form their own nations. Self-determination has happened many times in the past and I don't see why this would change in the future.

5) It had been my understanding that the Baha'i faith also believed in a single unifying language for humankind. However the official website of the Baha'i International Community cites "the need for a universal auxiliary language."

And just a couple minor notes to finish off with:

The link to Nick Gisburne's website is no longer in the sidebar. He has taken down his website because he is no longer interested in discussing Atheism. This means some of the links in my older posts may not work correctly.

Also, if you're wondering what's been happening with the buttons, you have no need to fret. I decided that it would be easier to post all the buttons once the challenge is over than to post them every week.

ReligiousTolerance.org Article

Baha'i International Community Website

Cultural Appropriation and Irony

Some of you that read my blog, in fact most of you, will probably know that I attended a Christian youth group for a while. Personally, I considered this mostly an excuse to hang out with my friends that were Christian.

This group held their meetings on Friday evenings, and it would involve a sermon of some sort. Usually, I would critically examine these sermons, as a sort of mental exercise. I think that it also made the time pass a bit faster. The sermons that the first pastor would give were pretty good, and I felt that even non-Christians, people of a secular nature, could gain something from listening to them.

After the first pastor left and was replaced, the sermons became noticeably different. They were delivered with more of an authoritative voice, a voice with more fervor. It also seemed that the message in these sermons was uniquely Christian, and that someone of a secular nature would have little if anything to gain from listening to them. One of my friends described him as more of a "fire and brimstone" preacher than the first pastor had been.

One Friday night, this pastor used a Native American folk story to illustrate a point. At the time, I was a bit annoyed that he had gotten some of the wording wrong. (If this seems a bit anal to you, you should know that I suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.) Afterwords, I told him that he had gotten some of the wording wrong. He chuckled and waved it off with "It's just a legend. The wording doesn't matter." I walked off, a bit more annoyed than I had been because of his comment. The irony of the entire situation didn't occur to me until a week or so ago.

First, the Native American oral tradition is a very important one. For centuries, the oral tradition was the only way that the Native Americans had to pass their creation myths, legends, and fables on to the next generation. I have no doubt that they took it very seriously, including the exact wording of these stories. I am not saying that these stories did not change; they undoubtedly did over the centuries, even if only a little bit.

Second, is it really appropriate for a member of the Christian faith to use a Native American story to illustrate a point? I'm talking about a religion that actively tried to convert the indigenous peoples of North America, tried to destroy their culture, and herded them on to reservations so more land would be available for European settlement. Not to mention residential schooling, an issue that is still being dealt with by the government today. I do not think that it is appropriate for an evangelical Christian to use a Native American parable to perpetuate their faith's goals.

Third, the irony! It's only a story and the wording doesn't matter? I wish you would apply that reasoning to your own faith! There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible and the Bible has been translated countless times, after being passed down orally for generations! I would say something to the effect of "It's the message, not the details that matter" but the Bible has so many contradictions and some of Christianity's central beliefs are so cruel that they are tantamount to abuse!

Now you might expect me to warn people about thinking about what they say before they say it, lest it reflect badly upon them. I'm not going to say that. It serves as a warning to the rest of us.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

-Isaac Asimov

A Long Overdue Rant and Buttons Update

I've decided to post the buttons that I bought but never really wore. AfterVerner and Kai were right. I originally came up with the whole idea of wearing a button every week as a way to express myself without ever saying anything. I've always been a bit shy about expressing my beliefs on social issues. I think it's because I fear being ostracized. Anyway, here they are:

Jan. 6 - Jan. 12: God Loves You! Some restrictions may apply...

Jan. 13 - Jan. 19: Please Jesus, protect me from your followers!

Jan. 20 - Jan. 26: How long until evolution eliminates the Christian Right?

Jan. 27 - Feb. 2: Just another soulless atheist in search of world peace and harmony.

Feb. 3 - Feb. 9: Truth is the first casualty of war.

(Friggernaffy! I missed a week!)

This week: No really, I live for these creepy, awkward moments.

Now let me explain a few things. One, I realize the irony in AfterVerner being the first one to encourage me to post them. Second, I have nothing against Christians.

I remember when I was younger, probably about six or seven, recieving a couple of Bibles as a gift. I'm sure that they were from someone that didn't know my family very well. They were the kind of Bibles with the colourful illustrations of Noah's ark or Jesus, and proclamied that the pages within contained 'the greatest story ever told.' They were the kind of Bibles with all of the 'fire and brimstone' type passages removed, probably to avoid scaring any little kids.

I read them in their entirety, as I did with any other book. After completing them, I couldn't help but feel confused. I simply couldn't believe it. This was the greatest story ever told? Other people actually believed this and accepted it as fact?

I should probably mention at this time that I was raised an atheist, as far as I can tell. We never prayed, we never talked about spiritual belief. I had only been in a church once, as far as I could remember. Our neighbours (who weren't very devout) invited us because their kids were getting baptized. I remember feeling out of place, and I didn't understand the purpose of getting baptized. I don't think I fully understand it today.

I realize that the majority of Christians are good people. It's people like this and people who use parts of the Bible like this and this to justify their prejudices. Also people who make websites like this and this and this and this.

Also, hypocrisy. This is not the love that Jesus was talking about. Memo to the religious right: Get your heads out of the sand. (I mean 'right' in terms of the political spectrum.)

I do my best to treat these people based on who they are, not what they are. I only wish they had the wisdom and respect to do the same.

And that is why I'm not a Christian. (Or any other Abrahamic religion, for that matter, but I don't have anything against them either other than for the same reasons I outlined here.)