Sorry, But Amendment 1 Is Very Much About Religion

Religion is the third rail of the Amendment 1 debate. Organizations from both sides of the debate have been reluctant to state explicitly that, to many North Carolinians, this really is about religion.

While it's true that it isn't (and doesn't have to be) about religion (at its core it is about codifying discrimination in the NC state constitution), both sides of the debate know the importance of religion in getting out the vote.

Those fighting against the amendment, such as The Coalition to Protect All American Families, are very vocal about pro-equality allies in the faith community, proving that it is possible to reconcile marriage equality with faith.

On the other hand, those in favor of the constitutional same-sex marriage ban (such as Vote For Marriage NC) have not been shy about religion's role in their anti-equality stance.

Take this email sent from Vote For Marriage last week, replete with (groundless) cries of religious persecution, and several flat-out lies intended to invoke fear in the religious:

Preserving marriage is vital for protecting religious liberty in North Carolina. If activists were to redefine marriage for society, citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not comply with the new definition of marriage. That’s why we need your support to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th.

Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that redefining marriage has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation’s most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues ranging from religious liberty and individual expression of faith, to education and licensed professions. Here are a few recent examples:

• Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples
have lost their state tax exemption.

• Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington, D.C. have had to
choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or yielding to
this new definition of marriage.

• In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in
class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out
of such instruction.

• Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.

• Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married.

One of the very reasons our country was founded was to protect religious liberty. Now, the freedom to practice our religious beliefs is under attack. We urge you to join us in protecting religious liberty by donating to this battle to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

As a reminder, you are also invited to join us as we rally for marriage across North Carolina with the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council on the Values Bus Tour.

For more information about how you can help defend marriage in North Carolina, visit VoteForMarriageNC.com. Campaigns cost money, and this campaign is in its most critical time for mobilizing our forces. Making a generous donation to protect marriage from radical re-definition is the best way you can help. I hope you will!

Sincerely,

Tami L. Fitzgerald
Chairwoman, Vote FOR Marriage NC

Another Vote For Marriage NC email from late February was written by the president of NC Baptists, and invited recipients to join National Pray For Marriage Day:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The sanctity of marriage is being threatened not only here in North Carolina but throughout our nation. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, striking down the expressed will of over 7 million Californians who voted to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

As many of you know, the Alliance Defense Fund has led the charge on defending marriage, not only in California but throughout the nation. We would like to invite you to join them this Sunday, February 26th for a day to pray for marriage – praying that marriages across our land will be strengthened, and that God’s design for marriage will be upheld and honored. We also ask that you take this time to pray for marriage in our own state, and that on May 8th voters throughout the state of North Carolina choose to protect the definition of marriage in the Constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

Please click here to find a prayer guide that you can use and pass along to others to inform them about this special day. Also, please consider sharing this with your pastor, Bible study, friends and family, so that as many believers as possible will know and participate in this day of unified, focused prayer.

The future of marriage, both in North Carolina and the nation, is far from decided, and what is happening in California is just another battle in the ongoing war over marriage. Nevertheless, the need for prayer has never been more urgent, for without Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5). We are thankful for the Alliance Defense Fund and its tireless effort to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We are working diligently to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment on May 8th so that marriage will be preserved in our state Constitution. We cannot sit back while activists redefine marriage for all of us. We need your support to win this fight.

Please visit www.VoteFORMarriageNC.com to donate, volunteer and get involved.

With your support, we can protect marriage in North Carolina.

Sincerely,
Dr. Mark Harris
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Charlotte
President, NC Baptists

The email containsa link to a PDF "prayer guide" featuring the following text:

The institution of Marriage is under severe attack in our culture today. Will you join in a nationwide day of unified, focused prayer for Marriage in America? 

There are many ways you can be in prayer for marriage on this special day. This is merely a guide to help you, and your church, as you go before the Lord in prayer for marriage.

Praise God for the impact of Marriage:  
• Thank Him for how marriage refines our character, creates stable community for the birth and nurture of children, and unites men & women in an enduring whole-life union.
• Thank Him for giving the distinct, irreplaceable gifts a mom and a dad each uniquely bring to children, through marriage.

 Pray for the marriages in your community:
• For healing, restoration, and divine protection over the relationships between husbands and wives in your church, neighborhood, and among your friends and family.
• That Christians will hold fast to the Biblical truth about marriage and boldly stand up for children, who are most protected and impacted by marriage.

Pray for the future of Marriage:
• For the nation to uphold the truth that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of society and the best environment for raising children.
• For Americans to remember the damage already done to marriage in our society, and how that has hurt children.

Pray for God’s design for sex and sexuality in Marriage:
• Pray for sexual purity; that sex will be reserved for marriage, and celebrated in marriage.
• Pray for those hurting and suffering from going outside of God’s plan for sexuality.
• Pray for sexual fidelity and faithfulness between husbands and wives.
• Pray for children’s innocence to be protected from false sexual indoctrination in schools.

Pray for victory in the lawsuits and legislation that threatens to undermine Marriage:
• Perry v. Brown – a lawsuit to redefine marriage by creating same-sex “marriage.”
• Bishop v. United States – a lawsuit to overturn our nation’s highest law about marriage.
• Brown v. Utah – a lawsuit to legally recognize polygamy.

Whether we like it or not, it's about religion, folks. And while people take their faith very seriously, it's not necessarily a bad thing that religion is playing such an important role here.

A few points:

The purpose of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is "to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." It's quite clear from the language used by Amendment 1 supporters that their beliefs are deeply rooted in a specific brand of religion. I certainly don't share their views, nor do many other North Carolinians who either are not religious, or whose faith may not endorse discrimination. While the legislation itself steers clear of religious language, it's important that we are aware of the religious roots of anti-LGBT sentiment, and the fact that so many organizations and individuals are openly citing religious belief as the source of their beliefs on marriage.

The word 'sanctity' which is so often used by supporters of the amendment is at its core a signifier of religious belief: "the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). In other contexts, objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods."

Our constitution should never be a place to a) enshrine discrimination against any group of citizens, or b) codify religious beliefs in the public sphere. Constitutions should protect us from these very things -- anything else is not quite a democracy, and a far cry from the wall of separation envisioned by America's founders.

While I understand the reluctance for the anti-Amendment 1 groups to turn this into a religious debate, ignoring it doesn't make it go away. We need to lift up the hood and really understand why we feel the way we do about Amendment 1. If we are honest with ourselves, and if our faith is keeping us from voting against the Amendment on May 8, we are very likely validating our own prejudices and feelings with scripture that is not being appreciated in the appropriate context, and we are most definitely proposing legislation that is not in keeping with the intent of our constitution.

We need to remember, and remind others, that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of human history. The institution itself is older than any of the three Abrahamic religions.  Enshrining the current snapshot of the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage in our state constitution is indeed a permanent endorsement of very specific religious ideology in our state's supreme legal document.

No matter what your faith, it should be easy to admit that this is a rotten idea.

Mississippi's 'Personhood' Amendment Is Ludicrous (It May Be Coming to Your State, Too)

Update: The Mississippi personhood amendment was defeated on Tuesday, Nov. 8, but other efforts are underway in other states. This initiative is not going away anytime soon.

A blastocyst (aka 'person') on the tip of a pin

Mississippi is on the verge of passing a constitutional amendment that would define a person as a fertilized egg.

The so-called "personhood" amendment is on the November 8 ballot, and according to the most recent polling, it is very likely to pass.

This should be ridiculously alarming to anyone who is not completely out of touch with reality. Not only would the amendment have cascading legal implications, it would also have serious impact on the health and rights of all women. In addition, the amendment endorses all sorts of religious ideas, whether or not those are defined in the legislation.

Slate served up a slightly humorous, yet incredibly scary, list of legal questions that would arise from the legislation, including the following:

If you are legal person at fertilization, does that mean you could drink at 20 years and three months? Could you drive at 15 and three months? Could you vote at age 17, and collect Social Security at 64?

For legal purposes, would your birthday still be your “birth” day? Or your fertilization day?

Could you arrest women for smoking or drinking while pregnant? Could the state file a child abuse case against a mother who didn’t wear a seatbelt or otherwise endangered her fetus?

If a doctor doesn't take all possible steps to stop a miscarriage, would that be manslaughter?

Could you post ultrasound photos of your fetus (naked) on Facebook? Or would that be child pornography?

Would you be an American citizen if you were conceived in Mississippi but born elsewhere? Could there be “anchor babies” whose parents come to the United States, have sex, and then return home to Mexico for their baby’s birth?

If a woman eats food contaminated by Listeria and miscarries, could the agribusiness be prosecuted for murder?

What about ectopic pregnancies? If the embryo is not removed, it could kill the mother. Should the mother or the doctor be prosecuted for manslaughter if they remove it? Maybe it would be fairer to prosecute the embryo. If the fertilized egg is a person, isn't that person trying to commit murder-suicide?

Granted, some of these examples seem silly. But their ludicrousness underscores a few things: A) Such an extreme and broad amendment has huge implications on the interpretation of the law moving forward, and B) The amendment is ludicrous from the get-go.

Let's look at the human blastocyst. (By definition of the personhood amendment, a blastocyst would now constitute a person.)

Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris wrote about blastocysts in relation to the ethics of stem cell research, but his arguments are just as apt in debating 'personhood':

A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. [These] human embryos...do not have brains, or even neurons....Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

Sure, a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being. But we must also remember that an acorn is not a tree. It has the potential to become a tree, sure. We must take into consideration the fact that trees evolved to overcompensate -- to produce acorns that outnumber the trees that result from those acorns. This is how nature works.

Twenty percent of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. If all fertilized eggs are 'people,' then 20 percent of all people are killed before they are born. Will there be investigations to determine who was responsible for the untimely death of 1/5 of all 'people' in Mississippi? Will every woman who suffers a miscarriage be interrogated? If it was natural, is God the most prolific serial murderer in Mississippi's history?

Now that I've brought religion into the picture (how can one not?), let's look at this business of souls. Harris writes:

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.

Isn't it time we admitted that this arithmetic of souls does not make any sense? The naive idea of souls...is intellectually indefensible.

The vote occurring in Mississippi should be very concerning to anyone who cares about privacy, science, liberty, and the enforcement of religious ideology as law. This amendment would ban all abortions, including those that result from incest and rape. It would ban IUDs and 'morning-after pills.' It would render embryonic stem cell research illegal. It would hamper in-vitro fertilization treatment.

God granting personhood to a blastocyst (artist rendering)

And, if successful, it will serve as a template for similar amendments across the country (there are already efforts brewing in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states), and passage could fundamentally transform the entire framework of laws in each state.

But what should be most troubling about this amendment is it attempts to define legally something which has yet to be defined by science. There is no consensus whatsoever as to when 'life' begins. There is no consensus on the definition of 'life,' in reproductive terms. The legislation attempts to define life in language that is in no way scientific. What it attempts to do is say that a bolt comes down from on high at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, and transforms it into a person.

This is supernaturalism, it's not supported by science, and it's about to become law.

House Re-Re-Re-Affirms 'In God We Trust' As National Motto

While American minds were focused on the flagging economy, multiple wars, a ballooning deficit, record unemployment, corporate greed, and economic inequality, the House spent part of Tuesday officially re-affirming 'In God We Trust' as the official national motto of The United States of America.

'In God We Trust' has been our official motto since 1956. The phrase has appeared on US coins since 1864, and on paper currency since 1957. Americans see this motto every day when they spend their hard-earned money on overpriced products that are manufactured overseas -- money they earn from jobs that they fear they may lose, if they haven't already lost them.

Even though the motto is enshrined in our currency, in our legislation (Public Law 84-851), and in the United States Code (at 36 U.S.C. § 302) which states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto," House Republicans wanted to ensure that there isn't any confusion about the motto. (The non-binding resolution was approved 396-9, with 2 abstentions.)

Representative J. Randy Forbes, Republican of Virginia and the measure’s sponsor, stated:

“What’s happened over the last several years is that we have had a number of confusing situations in which some who don’t like the motto have tried to convince people not to put it up.”

He has a point. How can America possibly overcome its obstacles if there is confusion about the motto that appears in the House chamber above Forbes' head, and in the Capitol Visitors’ Center, and on the very money that he uses to purchase his morning latte?

Maybe America is confused. Maybe, despite the motto's inclusion on our currency, its enshrinement in public law and US code, and its appearance on public buildings, we have forgotten that in 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill re-affirming 'In God We Trust' as our official national motto.

Maybe, despite the money thing, and the public law and US code stuff, and the re-affirming by Bush, Americans are still confused, forgetting that Senate re-reaffirmed the motto as our official national motto on its 50th anniversary of officialdom.

Maybe the House is treating this issue the way many religious people treat prayer requests. Maybe if its repeated enough times by enough people, the signal is stronger, and God is therefore more likely to receive the call if he's traveling through a dead spot in the San Fernando Valley.

Maybe now, we can finally get some help on the issues that are plaguing our country. If not from God, perhaps from our lawmakers, who won't need to reaffirm our motto for at least a few more years.

The 10 Worst States To Be a Woman

Over at Alternet, Amanda Marcotte has compiled a list of the 10 worst states to be a woman. the list is based on the nearly 1,000 laws introduced by Republican (and some Democrat) state legislators in 2011 limiting women's access to reproductive health.

The losers:
1. Mississippi
2. Texas
3. South Dakota
4. Indiana
5. Oklahoma
6. Kansas
7. Minnesota
8. Georgia
9. Arizona
10. Louisiana

Most of these states, unsurprisingly, have other notable things in common.

See Marcotte's full story to learn more about what's going on in these states.

Court Rules Wal-Mart Legally Justified In Firing Anti-Gay Religious Bigot

The religious discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act do not include the right to harass co-workers with anti-gay religious tirades, according to a federal appeals court in Chicago.

Via Gay City News:

According to the unsigned ruling, Tanisha Matthews, who describes herself as an Apostolic Christian, worked as an overnight stocker at a Wal-Mart store in Joliet, Illinois. While on a break, she took part in a heated conversation with other employees about God and homosexuality.

Another employee who participated reported to management that Matthews was "screaming over her" that God does not accept gays, they should not "be on earth," and they will "go to hell" because they are not "right in the head." During a company investigation of the incident, five other employees confirmed that Matthews said gays are sinners who are going to hell.

The ruling made it clear that one's rights to religious freedom stop at the moment that a workplace becomes a hostile environment for an employee:

The appeals court ruling stated, "If Matthews is arguing that Wal-Mart must permit her to admonish gays at work to accommodate her religion, the claim fails." The court pointed out, "Wal-Mart fired her because she violated company policy when she harassed a co-worker, not because of her beliefs, and employers need not relieve workers from complying with neutral workplace rules as a religious accommodation if it would create an undue hardship. In this case, such an accommodation would place Wal-Mart on the 'razor's edge' of liability by exposing it to claims of permitting work-place harassment."

Many anti-gay religious groups believe that such rulings, as well as hate crime legislation, infringe on their right to speak of their beliefs, which might include judgment on the LGBT population. Some have gone so far as to state that clergy could be arrested for such remarks made from the church pulpit.  Which is nothing more than hysteria.

If anything, the ruling should make it clear that no one is prohibited from holding or sharing such beliefs -- as long as it's in the appropriate setting. Like, for instance, church.  

Toss The Ten Commandments

Do a Google News search for "Ten Commandments" at any time, and you will find hundreds of articles about dozens of flaps over the placement of the commandments in public spaces -- courtrooms, schools, parks, etc.  The Ten Commandments have become such a monolith of our culture that many assumptions are made about them, the most common being that the United States is a Christian nation with founding documents steeped in Judeo-Christian dogma, and as such the nation was founded on God's law. 

While courts continue to argue their appropriateness in courthouses and schools, it seems that we never stop to consider whether or not The Ten Commandments themselves are a useful tool in guiding our morality.  The Ten Commandments are something that nearly everyone is familiar with, as a concept, and as a sum of its parts.  But so many of us, even many Christians and Jews, could not recite them, even out of order, if our lives depended on it. In 2007, in a survey conducted by Kelton Research, 80% of those surveyed knew that "two all beef patties" were ingredients in a Big Mac, but only less than 60% knew the commandment "thou shalt not kill." Sixty percent of those surveyed could not name five of The Ten Commandments. (If you're feeling self-conscious now, feel free to brush up on them here.)

Even if we could remember The Ten Commandments, how useful are they in actually dictating our morality? We often hear people say things like, "Without The Ten Commandments, people would have no reason not to kill or steal."  Comments like that make me wonder about the moral fabric of the people who say such things.  Is a simple commandment the only thing standing between them and cold-blooded murder, or a shoplifting spree? 

Dan Barker, a former Evangelical Christian preacher, songwriter, and performer, has spent some time dissecting The Ten Commandments and gauging their usefulness.  In various writings, including his book Godless, he has pointed out that only three of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to American law: homicide, theft, and perjury.  He points out that Adultery and Sabbath laws are on the books in some states, but are artifacts of theocracy. 

Commandments one through four (no other gods, graven images, Lord's name in vain, and the Sabbath) have absolutely nothing to do with morality, offering no suggestions on how we should treat each other.  We've nearly gone through half of them and have only been told how we can please the Abrahamic God. 

The Fifth Commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," is the first one that even begins to sound moral.  It's decent enough advice, but, as Barker points out, it's vague (how exactly do we honor them?) and in some instances could end up badly (what if your parents are abusive, or terrible advisors?). 

"Thou shalt not kill," the Sixth Commandment, is a good one.  It took us six commandments to actually get to a moral statement, one that addresses doing actual harm in the real world.  Although, Barker notes, it doesn't tell us what we should do about war, capital punishment, self defense, and other ways in which killing is legal in the United States. 

"Thou shalt not commit adultery," Commandment seven, is also good advice, but not against the law. 

Commandment Eight, "Thou shalt not steal," is good advice, and is the second commandment that actually applies to our laws. 

The Ninth Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," is also good advice, but lies are only occasionally illegal in America, under very specific circumstances.   And although this is generally good moral advice, there are instances when following this commandment would cause more harm than not following it.  There is the old thought experiment where you are housing Jews in Nazi Germany, and a Nazi soldier comes to the door to ask if there are Jews in your home.  This is a time when our natural empathy and morality trumps any absolute on a stone tablet.

The Tenth Commandment, "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife/house/ox, etc." -- this is ok advice, but hardly something that pertains to American law.  Barker points out that without a nation of Tenth Commandment-breakers, "our entire system of free enterprise would collapse."

So, after going through The Ten Commandments, Barker says, we have "four religious edicts that have nothing to do with ethics, three one-dimensional prohibitions that are irrelevant to modern law, and three shallow absolutes that are useful but certainly not unique to the Judeo-Christian system."  Barker states that any one of us could very easily come up with a more sensible, thorough, ethical code for human behavior.

It should be clear, after actually examining and thinking about The Ten Commandments, that they serve no purpose in a courtroom (or school, etc.) other than to bolster those who are adamant that America is a Christian nation.  A judge could glean no legal advice from any of the commandments, of which only a few apply in any way to US law. 

The Ten Commandments are interesting from a historical perspective.  It serves a population well to be religiously literate.  We certainly are better off knowing and understanding them, and where they came from, than knowing the ingredients of a Big Mac.  But if we believe that these are our best moral guide, we are fooling ourselves.  We could toss The Ten Commandments as a moral guide, and replace them with one suggestion that, if followed, would provide an actual moral and ethical code: Always act to minimize the suffering and increase the well-being of living things.  It is a guideline that does not rely on absolutes and requires that we analyze our actions and weigh the outcomes of each choice we make.  And in another two thousand years, it will make as much sense to those still walking the earth as it does today.