The Falsity of the New “Religious Freedom” Arguments

Click image to enlarge

One now hears a endless drumbeat for the Christofascists and their sycophants about the need to protect "religious freedom" - which in reality translates to mean special rights for far right Christians and special exemptions from the laws that govern the rest of the citizenry.  The falsity of the justification for such "religious freedom" laws is akin to the far right's blather about protecting "biblical marriage" which they allege to mean "one man and one woman" even though a reading of the Bible shows that that was never the biblical model of marriage.  A piece in Salon looks at the lies behind the Christofascist narrative.  Here are column excerpts:

Pope John Paul II famously declared, back in 2003, that “God’s authentic plan for the family as a community of life [is] founded on marriage, in other words, on the stable and faithful union of a man and a woman, bound to each other by a bond which is publicly manifested and recognized.”

Reading this, one wonders, had the pope been skipping out on his Bible-study sessions? At least as far as biblical marriage goes, he got it all wrong.

I would like to arrange a biblical marriage for myself.  That is, a flat-out, no-holds-barred “traditional” marriage purely and distinctly in accordance with hallowed biblical criteria. Of course, I plan to follow Genesis 2:24 and “cleave” unto my wife. I’m supposed to become “of one flesh” with her. But note that contrary to Pope John Paul’s statement, the Bible doesn’t anywhere say I can have only one wife. Just after the above-cited verse, we read in Genesis 4:19 about Lamech, who took two wives. The patriarch Abraham – the founding father of three world religions — had two, and King Solomon had 700. So I’m going to marry as many times as I like, and “cleave” unto each one in turn, depending on the night of the week.

I also plan on following the examples laid down in the Good Book and helping myself to the sexual favors of our domestic help, which I will not, however, enslave, as Leviticus 25:44-46 allows.  

If any of my proliferating wives dare rebuke me, I’ll thunder words from Ephesians 5:22-33 at them. They must, that verse says, submit unto me “as unto the Lord” Himself.  And if they should behave foolishly, I intend to beat them, as is stipulated in Proverbs 10:12-31.

In behaving this way, it might seem as though I’m breaking a raft of laws, state and federal. I may well be, but I don’t care! Doing otherwise would “burden my religion.” I’m obeying a “higher law” – the one decreed by the Almighty Himself. I can quote the Holy Scripture chapter and verse to prove it.

[M]arriage as the ancient Israelites conceived it, and as demonstrated throughout the Bible’s rapine-replete rants, sagas of savagery and mind-deadening genealogical longueurs, has precious little to do with what faith-derived custom and Western history A.D. have bequeathed to us: the “traditional” matrimony between one man and one woman. We can be thankful for that. Those discriminating against same-sex couples, alleging a RFRA-type “burden” to their religion, and planning, if necessary, to present a RFRA-based defense, should beware: the sainted scripture they plan on adducing in court consists of “wild and disorderly compositions” (to quote Thomas Paine) so larded with evidence contrary to their case that they should not stand a chance of prevailing, at least before a rational judge in a fair court.

[I]t should shock no one that for some of the faith-addled, the SCOTUS ruling settled nothing at all. A county circuit clerk in Mississippi protested that her “final authority is the Bible” and that “the Supreme Court’s decision violates my core values as a Christian.” She quit, rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Clerks in three Kentuckian counties have also refused to give marriage licenses to gays, even though the governor of that state has stated that he would obey the law.

Longtime ultra-conservative Roman Catholic pundit Pat Buchanan . . . predicted an “era of civil disobedience . . . A more accurate description would be “a collective temper tantrum thrown by faith-deranged folks who didn’t get their way in court.” In any case, the “disobedience,” such as it is, has remained limited to the red states and shows no sign of spreading significantly farther afield (though it may well prove tenacious). Time and progress are against these flat-earther holdouts. With opposition to same-sex marriage religious in origin, and religion declining across the country, they will find themselves ever more isolated.

Obeying or flouting the law as established by Obergefell v. Hodges is not, as Buchanan has it, a matter of “conscience” but of self-interest. 

It’s time we recognized “civil disobedience” against same-sex marriage for what it is: mean-spirited bullying, an attempt to forcibly impose vicious old superstitious notions of right and wrong on people wanting to do nothing more than enjoy the equality before the law provided for in the Constitution. No matter what Jesus said, the “kingdom” of these reactionary zealots is very much “of this world;” they aim not merely to practice their religion as protected by the First Amendment, but to coerce others into living by its bizarre dictates.  

We have disproved the voodoo “knowledge” religion preaches about cosmogony, and can safely ditch its “moral” certitudes, too, in favor of solutions arrived at through reason, discussion and consensus.   Meanwhile, faith-deranged tantrum-mongers will fume and foam at the mouth, at least for a time. Their best plan of action may well be an active retreat from the rest of us, . . .

The Idiocy of Those Supporting "Biblical Marriage"

Click image to enlarge

This morning I wrote about a state court magistrate judge in North Carolina who resigned from his judicial position rather than - the horrors - marry same sex couples now that marriage equality has come to North Carolina despite the efforts the North Carolina Republican Party.  The judge, Magistrate Judge Gilbert Breedlove, justified his action with this statement: "The whole Bible from front to end states that a marriage is between a man and a wife," . . . "Any other type of sexual activity other than that is what is defined as fornication."  I'm sorry, but Breedlove might just have well had "I'm an ignorant ass" on his forehead.  Why?  Because, as a post in Huffington Post by a biblical scholar points out, there is NO biblical marriage in the form of "one man and one woman."  Making matters worse, Breedlove purports to be an ordained minister.  He obviously never bothered to actually read the Bible. As I have stated many times, fundamentalist Christianity requires ignorance to survive.  Here are excerpts from Huffington Post that underscores Breedlove's ignorance:

In light of the recent resignations of two North Carolina magistrates, explained by their religious convictions that same-sex marriage is a sin or desecrates the "holy institution established by God Himself," I would like to offer a few points of clarification to the overall discourse. 

First, the kinds of relationships that qualify for marriage in the Bible, and thus could count as "biblical marriage," represent quite a striking range of options. They include polygamy (more than one wife or concubine, simultaneously), open marriage for the man (since he can have access to the female slaves or servants in the house), forcing a woman to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and levirate marriage (wherein a childless widow must marry the brother of her deceased husband). Those are just a few of the examples from the Hebrew Bible. 

What we see in the Newer Testament includes Jesus claiming that men can leave their wives and children in order to follow him (Luke 18:28-30), in addition to him somewhat throwing the gauntlet in Matthew 19:10-12, where he discusses men being made eunuchs or making themselves such for the sake of the kingdom . . . 

I think most people are simply unaware of the range of possibilities that qualify, regardless of which testament of the Bible we look to. 

The second point I would like to clarify is that, aside from that one moment in 1 Corinthians 7, marriage is discussed in terms of the woman as the property of the man. I say this with a fairly literal sense intended. It does explain why or how so many biblical stories show wives being treated as less than fully human, but I do hope that people who love the Bible can admit that this is an element of it that we ought not to continue to endorse.

Third, when people say that the "Bible says homosexuality/gay marriage is a sin," I know that they believe that the Bible says this, since I used to think so, too. But it does not.  . . . . the issue is about the people of Israel needing to grow in numbers. Any wasting of semen was not to be tolerated and thus was an abomination. None of those situations are talking about two same-sex people in loving relationships.Finally, there is no specific place where "God Himself" establishes marriage as a holy institution.

When I hear someone say she only believes in "biblical marriage," my knee-jerk reaction is to want to ask her which version she is referring to. I also find myself wanting to remind her that love is never discussed as foundational to marriage. Thus, while same-sex marriage is not endorsed in the Bible, neither is a loving, mutually agreed upon union of a man and woman.

As I said this morning, the North Carolina judiciary is far better off with a self-professed ignoramus like Breedlove off the bench.

Bob McDonnell Blatant Hypocrisy

In political campaigns from the time he first ran for the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell has always sold himself as a champion of "family values" and shamelessly prostituted himself to Christofascist organizations like The Family Foundation.   He has condemned gays and blathered about the "sanctity of marriage" and the biblical model of "one man and one woman" even though the Old Testament model for marriage is polygamy.  McDonnell has always been a huckster pandering to those who need someone to hate and look down upon so that they can feel better about their own small minded, often miserable lives.  The ongoing criminal corruption trial in Richmond has underscored just how phony McDonnell as been in the public persona he has marketed.  A piece in the Daily Progress looks at the fraud that McDonnell has proven himself to be all these years.  Here are excerpts:

"The real enemies of the traditional family (are) materialism, irresponsibility, feminism, lust, and ultimately selfishness." - Bob McDonnell

We've been told for years by people like Gov. Bob McDonnell that allowing homosexuals to marry would mark the beginning of the end for Virginia's families and their values. Ironically, while we wait for the Supreme Court to rule on gay marriages, McDonnell is doing a fine job of destroying his own.

Whether Bob McDonnell's behavior as governor was legal or not will be decided by a jury, but no matter the verdict, receiving over $150,000 in loans and "gifts" from entrepreneur Jonnie Williams tarnished the public image of the office. With his testimony in the trial, McDonnell seems willing to break the covenant he made with his wife Maureen, and tarnish the image of his marriage, in an attempt to avoid prison. McDonnell's defense in the couple's public corruption trial appears to be centered on painting a picture of his wife Maureen as a nutbag who he was forced to placate while making apologies for her during his time in the Governor's mansion. 

Bob McDonnell has been running on the issue of "family values" even before he was a candidate for any office. In his Master's degree dissertation at Regent University, McDonnell laid out the case for a Republican campaign on family issues as the best way to lead the country and win elections."

The traditional family is the cornerstone upon which Western civilization has been built, but changes in demographics, ideology, and political philosophy during this century have resulted in the decline in the strength of the family institution. … Republicans must stay consistently committed to their principles, communicate more effectively with the American public, and take bold action to restore the family to a position of strength in modern society."

During the Governor's race, McDonnell distanced himself from some of the more controversial statements he made in the paper, but his devotion to marriage never wavered. During his decade in the House of Delegates, he was a patron of a "Covenant Marriage" bill which would indicate he considered his own marital bonds to be stronger than a piece of government-issued paper.

Bob McDonnell failed his office and the people of Virginia. He's brought shame to himself and to our state. He can be forgiven for those mistakes, he's a human being. But failing his Covenant to his wife in an attempt to escape justice is indefensible. No matter how you vote, ask yourself if you would do the same?

Sadly, I believe that McDonnell is typical of the "family values" politicians in the Virginia GOP. They fear the Christofascists that they helped to empower in the Party and now lie and prostitute themselves simply to stay in office.  It is they, not gays and "liberals" who have no values, no integrity and no honor. 

Rape-Marriage of Nigerian Girls IS "Biblical Marriage"

We hear incessantly from the Christofascists that "one man and one woman" marriage is "biblical marriage" as designed by God.   Like just about everything that comes from the lips of the Christofascists, it is a lie.  A close review of the Old Testament portion of the Bible in particular, shows that polygamy was the true norm in terms of biblical marriage.  Moreover, most brides were little more than girls who all too often had no voice in the selection of their husband to be.  Indeed, given their involuntary entry into such marriages, they might well be called "rape-marriages."  All these facts, of course are conveniently ignored by the godly folk.  A piece in Religion Dispatches looks at the fate of girls in Nigeria which reflect true "biblical marriage.  Here are excerpts:

Nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls have been ripped from their desks and chairs, notebooks and pencils, smiles and giggles and sent to hell. They’ve been sold, trafficked for sex and reproduction and household labor. Typically described as “forced” marriage, it would be more accurate to call it rape marriage. And, along with polygamy, rape-marriage is a form of biblical marriage despite being regularly overlooked by conservatives proclaiming their desire to return to biblical marriage. It’s evil but it also happens to be scriptural. 

The practice of rape marriage occurs in many cultures and while it is sanctioned by scriptures it actually reflects the antiquated beliefs and practices of many cultures. Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group (mis)uses the language of Islam in declaring forbidden—haram—all forms of western education. Its sole purpose, they claim, is to (re)turn to a state where their cultural and religious values, as they imagine them, are normative, according to their interpretation of Sharia.

In their gross misrepresentation of Islam Boko Haram has turned to a pre-Muslim, pre-Christian practice, that of human trafficking for rape-marriages. These terrorists target girls who are being freed from the shackles of illiteracy and sell them into sexual slavery, quasi-sanctioned by forms of marriage that don’t require the consent of the girl.

The concept of rape marriage is not unique to these villains or their perversion of Islam. The Jewish and Christian scriptures have their own rape texts. . . . . The desire for biblical marriage is more than a reification of heteronormative marriage; it’s also a rejection of women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy. At its core, rape marriage reduces girls to objects for sale and barter to reproduce through torturous conditions, women who are compliant and accepting of their lot in life as household, sexual and reproductive slaves.    

Forced illiteracy is key. Boko Haram is as threatened by the doodle-covered grammar books and primers of schoolgirls as American slaveowners were by letters scratched in the dirt by the women and men they claimed to own

In my commentary on Ruth, I argue that “Religious authorities (bible translators, pastors, seminary professors) have been criminally negligent in exposing the ways in which the biblical narrative sanctions and contributes to the abuse of women in general, and wives in particular.” So we must tell the whole story about the treatment of women and biblical marriage, one which hardly resembles the rosy picture religious conservatives seek to invoke with that phrase.

We must tell the truth that the bible says that fathers can sell their daughters into sexual slavery (Ex 21:7)—given that enslaved women were used to breed slaves and for sexual gratification; there was no slavery for women in the bible that was not sexual slavery. (An argument can be made for the sexual abuse of male slaves as well.)

We must tell the truth that the bible says soldiers can take virgin girls home with them as the spoils of war (Num 31:17).

We must tell the truth that the bible says cut the nails off the woman you take home as your war prize (Deut 21:11)—making the rape easier on the rapist.

We must tell the truth that the bible says that Israelite identity does not protect women from wholesale rape as a tool of war; Judges 21:10-23 details repeated kidnappings of girls for rape marriage within Israel by other Israelites.

We must tell the truth that the bible says Ruth and Orpah were abducted into rape marriages just like the Nigerian schoolgirls.

We must tell the truth that what is biblical is not always godly, holy or even right.  We must teach the bible’s Iron Age theology because it permeates our culture and society and we must reject that theology when it is death-dealing. 

The objectification of women and girls as objects for rape and forced procreation is the manifestation of the rejection of their—our—humanity. It is older than the bible and the other scriptural texts it permeates.
We must reject rape culture in all its forms, looking in all our houses, including houses of worship, sacred spaces and sacred texts.

Telling the truth and the Christofascists are mutually exclusive.  While Christ's Gospel message is positive, much of the Bible is a horror story that justifies all kinds of evils.  It is about time that people realize that the "Good Book" really is not so good in many, many ways.  

Scholars: Marriage Has Changed Over Time

To listen to the Christofascists, marriage has been between "one man and one woman" since the beginning of time.  Like just about everything the Christofascists say, this claim is, of course, a lie.  Even the Old Testament where polygamy was the marital norm and the "biblical" form of marriage proves the lie to the claim.  Now, with the gay marriage ruling in Utah sending the Christofascists and Neanderthals of the Mormon Church - who are demonstrating incredible hypocrisy given the Mormons' polygamous past - into hysteria, scholars are stepping forward and documenting that marriage has morphed over time and that the Christofascist claims are untrue.  Here are excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune:

The state of Utah so far has banked much of its legal argument against same-sex marriage on the assertion that such unions threaten the traditional, "age-old and still predominant," form of marriage: heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

That marriage form, the state says, has been the norm for Utah since its "very existence as a state" and it should not have to abandon the "deeply rooted definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for a genderless definition that severs the link between marriage and the vital societal purposes it has always and everywhere served."

It has proved to be a shaky argument.  In two different rulings — one legalizing same-sex marriage and the other decriminalizing polygamy — federal judges commented on the state’s claims about traditional marriage and its efforts to bar or penalize certain groups of people interested in committed relationships. 

And there’s this sticky point: It is accurate to say that polygamy — which the federal government 134 years ago barred the state from sanctioning — is the marriage form "found in more places and at more times than any other," as marriage historian Stephanie Coontz notes in her book, "Marriage, A History: from Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage." 

But, according to historian Nancy Cott, if there is anything traditional about marriage, it is its ability to adapt to changing social and ethical needs.

"Societal change over the centuries has produced new features in marriage that are commonly accepted today, although they would have been unthinkable at the founding of the United States," Cott said in a court document submitted by plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage lawsuit in Utah.

At the nation’s founding, traditional marriage was based on a "legal fiction" that married couples were one entity, led by a husband with sole legal, economic and political representation rights, she said.

"Many features of modern marriage that we take for granted today — such as the ability of both spouses to act as individuals, to marry someone of another race, or to divorce for numerous reasons — were fiercely resisted as they were coming into being, and were viewed by opponents as threatening to destroy the institution of marriage itself," Cott said in her affidavit.

Utah was among a majority of states that did not permit interracial marriages, a law adopted in 1852 — the same year The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly acknowledged polygamy as a key tenet of the faith. Utah repealed its anti-miscegenation statute in 1963.

Such laws were often justified on the basis that interracial marriage was "against nature or against the Divine plan," Cott said in her affidavit. "They contended that permitting cross-racial couples to marry would fatally degrade the institution of marriage."

"[T]he ability or willingness of couples to produce progeny has never been required for or necessary to marriage under the law of any American state," she said. "The notion that the main purpose of marriage is to provide an ideal or optimal context for raising children was never the prime mover in states’ structuring of the marriage institution in the United States, and it cannot be isolated as the main reason for the state’s interest in marriage today."

"Throughout American history, state legislatures and courts have made and altered laws governing the meaning and structure of marriage," she said. "Restrictions on marriage that were seen as necessary in their time have since been removed as unwarranted and/or unconstitutional."

Again, one must always remember that when a Christofascist's lips are moving, the best bet is to assume that they are lying.