While I am often a severe critic of the American government and its many violations of individual rights, it is also objective to understand that many governments are even worse. For instance, if one is a member of a congregation in Germany, that church collects taxes from you as an appendage to the state income tax. This is not a voluntary tax, except insofar as one may choose to be a congregation member or not. The tax is 8% or 9% of income depending upon the German state one is in. It is not surprising that the population of congregation members in Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany is dropping by 100,000 people a year.
It would be difficult to be able to afford being in a church congregation on top of the already heavy state and federal taxes, the high cost of home ownership, the high cost of German goods and services, and the high cost of energy in Germany. Consumer Prices are 15.56% higher in Germany than in the United States. The Average Monthly Disposable Salary After Taxes is 13.86% lower in Germany than in the US. It does not help at all that the German government has many laws and regulations that keep each of these costs high, including a tax on those who exercise their infringed freedom of conscience by being a member of a church congregation.
I suppose you could look upon the church member tax as a penalty tax for bad behavior, such as that the Democrat Socialists in the USA applies to those who do not buy the health insurance with the 10 essential benefits that most of us to not need. Of course the religions really are immoral and irrational, while buying a different health insurance plan than that mandated is generally both moral and rational. So one can look upon the German congregation tax as a state imposed sin tax. Nonetheless, it is a violation of the right to freedom of conscience. After all, while it is not wise to actually sin, it is often a right to do so. Of course I am using my own definition of sin, not that of a church.
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
10 June 2010
Equal Rights in Domestic Partnerships
Robert A. Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, and John D. Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress, wrote an interesting article for the 8 June 2010 Washington Post called Marriage Equality for All Couples. They noted that the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, ended the ban on interracial marriage in the 16 states with laws banning it at the time. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" This decision was based on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. Sadly, it took 99 years for this ruling to finally be made. At the time of that decision, 74% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages. Twenty years ago, only 6.8% of newly married couples said they married outside their race or ethnicity. That number is now 14.6% according to a recent Pew Research Center study. Clearly, the earlier prejudice against interracial marriages has subsided and more and more Americans are claiming their equal right to marry, whatever their racial mix may be.
The right of people to marry who are not heterosexual has not yet been given a basis in the federal courts. In 2003, the American opinion was that only 37% supported same-sex marriages. A February Washington Post poll found that 47% of Americans now support same-sex marriages. 65% of those ages 18 to 29 support same-sex marriages, so the trend will continue in the direction of increasing support. Robert Levy and John Podesta are the chairmen of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is supporting the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case is aiming to have California's Proposition 8 outlawing same-sex marriages declared a violation of the 14th Amendment and is now before the federal district court in California. The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It ought to win the freedom for all couples to enter into equal marriages.
I have long made it clear that government should not be claiming to play a role in marriage at all. For many, marriage is a spiritual union and I fully understand that concept even though it is not the case that I believe in a god. There is good reason to reserve the term marriage to meaning a spiritual union and allowing people to control that spiritual content in their marriages without any presumption on the part of government that it has anything to say about that spiritual content. Those who are religious or who have spiritual values which are not religious are best served by adopting a more appropriate term for the contract that government offers to couples. It would be better if this were universally called a domestic partnership contract or agreement. All of the issues which involve government are better described as contractual in nature. Recognizing this, provides a separation of church and state in marriages/domestic partnerships which would help to diminish the passion of the argument from religious quarters against equal rights in domestic partnership contracts.
As I have written many times also, domestic partnership agreements ought to be a parallel to small business partnerships in that government does not dictate the sex or number of partners. Two men, or two women, or two men and two women, or any other combination of several people ought to be free to enter into a legal domestic partnership contract. Joint property, joint responsibility for raising children, the sharing of income, and critical medical decisions and support could readily all be incorporated into such domestic partnership agreements.
Very likely, most families would still be built around one father and one mother, but the huge number of divorces and resulting serial marriages are clear evidence that one-man-one-woman marriages do not work for large numbers of people. Sometimes the failure is largely the result of two people becoming bored with one another or of one simply yearning for some change of pace. Sometimes, the couple simply do not always share the same cycle of need for sex. Sometimes, the strains of earning income, cleaning house, purchasing food and clothes, maintaining the house and cars, agreeing on a common vacation, and raising the children are simply too much for two people. Some people would do better in larger domestic partnerships in which tasks are spread over more specialists or where they can be varied over time. With most public schools having severe shortcomings, many such extended family groups would be able to have a member or two specialize in home-schooling the children, while a sufficient number of others remain to bring home the bacon. One member might be particularly good in managing the family investments, while another is great in playing with the kids and caring for the yard. One may love to cook, while another loves to work on the cars and keep them running. Another may like purchasing the groceries, the furniture, and the clothes for the children.
Of course, in many such cases, family members may have the option for having a sexual life enriched by more than one sexual partner. Sex is one of man's greatest pleasures in life. It is very important to many people that they are able to optimally enjoy this pleasure. There is no valid ethical principle that says that it is immoral for a man or a woman to have more than one sexual partner in any period of his or her life. The ethical issue is whether the person one chooses to have sex with is a person of good character who is of great interest to and highly valued by the chooser. If someone is fortunate enough to find more than one such person with whom they can form a more intimate bond with shared life-affirming sexual pleasures, people of good will ought to be ready to simply wish them the best. This is true whether the individuals in the serious and sincere sexual relationship are of different sexes or the same sex.
A knowledge of history makes it very clear that while some people may be entirely heterosexual, very many people are bisexual or homosexual. When societies are not burdened by severe heterosexual bigotry, it is clear that many people are happy to give outlet to their bisexual or homosexual desires and choose to pursue their happiness in that way. In our present time, the video market in erotic movies and the rich offering of sexual images and discussions offered on the Internet, make it clear that sex is both of great interest to many people and that their interests are highly varied. These interests, when given anonymous expression, do not conform to the publicly affirmed principles dominant in our society. It is clear that many sexual interests are being suppressed, some for good reason, but many for no more reason than traditional prejudice. It is no one's right to interfere with the exploration, development, and expression of another's optimal sexuality, so long as only consenting adults are involved.
We are all complex and highly differentiated individuals and one of the great expressions of that is in our sexuality. To suppress the sexual development and expression of others is to attack the rights of the individual in a very basic and fundamental way. This is an attempt to deny the nature of man and as such it is not consistent with a rational understanding of man and reality. Let us hope that a step in the direction of our sexual liberation will be made with a Supreme Court decision that same-sex marriage must be allowed because all people have an equal right to pursue their happiness in domestic partnerships.
The right of people to marry who are not heterosexual has not yet been given a basis in the federal courts. In 2003, the American opinion was that only 37% supported same-sex marriages. A February Washington Post poll found that 47% of Americans now support same-sex marriages. 65% of those ages 18 to 29 support same-sex marriages, so the trend will continue in the direction of increasing support. Robert Levy and John Podesta are the chairmen of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is supporting the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case is aiming to have California's Proposition 8 outlawing same-sex marriages declared a violation of the 14th Amendment and is now before the federal district court in California. The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It ought to win the freedom for all couples to enter into equal marriages.
I have long made it clear that government should not be claiming to play a role in marriage at all. For many, marriage is a spiritual union and I fully understand that concept even though it is not the case that I believe in a god. There is good reason to reserve the term marriage to meaning a spiritual union and allowing people to control that spiritual content in their marriages without any presumption on the part of government that it has anything to say about that spiritual content. Those who are religious or who have spiritual values which are not religious are best served by adopting a more appropriate term for the contract that government offers to couples. It would be better if this were universally called a domestic partnership contract or agreement. All of the issues which involve government are better described as contractual in nature. Recognizing this, provides a separation of church and state in marriages/domestic partnerships which would help to diminish the passion of the argument from religious quarters against equal rights in domestic partnership contracts.
As I have written many times also, domestic partnership agreements ought to be a parallel to small business partnerships in that government does not dictate the sex or number of partners. Two men, or two women, or two men and two women, or any other combination of several people ought to be free to enter into a legal domestic partnership contract. Joint property, joint responsibility for raising children, the sharing of income, and critical medical decisions and support could readily all be incorporated into such domestic partnership agreements.
Very likely, most families would still be built around one father and one mother, but the huge number of divorces and resulting serial marriages are clear evidence that one-man-one-woman marriages do not work for large numbers of people. Sometimes the failure is largely the result of two people becoming bored with one another or of one simply yearning for some change of pace. Sometimes, the couple simply do not always share the same cycle of need for sex. Sometimes, the strains of earning income, cleaning house, purchasing food and clothes, maintaining the house and cars, agreeing on a common vacation, and raising the children are simply too much for two people. Some people would do better in larger domestic partnerships in which tasks are spread over more specialists or where they can be varied over time. With most public schools having severe shortcomings, many such extended family groups would be able to have a member or two specialize in home-schooling the children, while a sufficient number of others remain to bring home the bacon. One member might be particularly good in managing the family investments, while another is great in playing with the kids and caring for the yard. One may love to cook, while another loves to work on the cars and keep them running. Another may like purchasing the groceries, the furniture, and the clothes for the children.
Of course, in many such cases, family members may have the option for having a sexual life enriched by more than one sexual partner. Sex is one of man's greatest pleasures in life. It is very important to many people that they are able to optimally enjoy this pleasure. There is no valid ethical principle that says that it is immoral for a man or a woman to have more than one sexual partner in any period of his or her life. The ethical issue is whether the person one chooses to have sex with is a person of good character who is of great interest to and highly valued by the chooser. If someone is fortunate enough to find more than one such person with whom they can form a more intimate bond with shared life-affirming sexual pleasures, people of good will ought to be ready to simply wish them the best. This is true whether the individuals in the serious and sincere sexual relationship are of different sexes or the same sex.
A knowledge of history makes it very clear that while some people may be entirely heterosexual, very many people are bisexual or homosexual. When societies are not burdened by severe heterosexual bigotry, it is clear that many people are happy to give outlet to their bisexual or homosexual desires and choose to pursue their happiness in that way. In our present time, the video market in erotic movies and the rich offering of sexual images and discussions offered on the Internet, make it clear that sex is both of great interest to many people and that their interests are highly varied. These interests, when given anonymous expression, do not conform to the publicly affirmed principles dominant in our society. It is clear that many sexual interests are being suppressed, some for good reason, but many for no more reason than traditional prejudice. It is no one's right to interfere with the exploration, development, and expression of another's optimal sexuality, so long as only consenting adults are involved.
We are all complex and highly differentiated individuals and one of the great expressions of that is in our sexuality. To suppress the sexual development and expression of others is to attack the rights of the individual in a very basic and fundamental way. This is an attempt to deny the nature of man and as such it is not consistent with a rational understanding of man and reality. Let us hope that a step in the direction of our sexual liberation will be made with a Supreme Court decision that same-sex marriage must be allowed because all people have an equal right to pursue their happiness in domestic partnerships.
16 January 2008
God is Man-Made
When people start talking about God, I sometimes ask them what they know about God. The answers I get most commonly are 1) "God is personal to me and I will not tell you who God is." and 2) God is good, powerful, the creator of the universe, all-knowing, and omnipresent. The first tells me nothing. The second leads to myriad questions, none of which the God-believer is prepared to answer. So, having a conversation about God with a believer is extremely difficult for one who is accustomed to the precision and the reality of science. God is not nearly as substantial as a fog. God is not as substantial as a field theory, since that can readily be known by observations of reality. No, God is a vanishing act. God is unknowable. Over and over, I am told that one simply has to choose to believe.
OK, so if I must simply choose to believe and then I have religion, why should I not choose to believe that the fate of the universe and the human race is determined by three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I could exercise my creative urges by thinking up a religion of my own creation. I could emulate Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, and Joseph Smith Jr., except I could readily invent a much better religion, one which held human life in much higher regard than do the religions of the past. However, my arbitrary belief in the three gnomes would already undermine what man needs most to live his life well. What he most needs is a respect for reality, for the power of his own mind to know reality, and for his ability to live his life better because he understands reality and the requirements of the well-lived life. Rather than consign his fate to the three gnomes, it is critical that he assume the responsibility for knowing reality and for managing his own life. If man truly wishes to achieve his happiness, then he must assume these personal responsibilities.
This man has no need for a vanishing God. He understands that if God comes into existence only to the extent that he arbitrary chooses to believe in God, then God is man-made. In effect, man is God. Man has the means to know reality and man's good is the Good. For something to be good, it must be good for that being who can act to gain or to keep that good. Something can be good for a man. It is not at all clear that anything is good for a God, given the usual vague ways in which God is defined or left as a very vacuous concept. But, if we believe that God is Good, then perhaps we should see what is good for man and call that God. Then, if we can determine what is good for a man, we could come to know what his God should be. But, it is really better if we simply cut off all of this God and religion tradition and start with a cleaner and clearer way of thinking about ethics and what is good for man. These issues are complex enough without all of this prehistoric and ancient baggage. Indeed, the contents of that baggage are a disorganized, contradictory, and irrational mess. Modern man should be better able to think out the issues of ethics and value better than a bunch of ignorant ancients or medieval flim-flam artists.
The god that most people believe in now is not really a universal God. No, he is a local God. There are the gods of the Hindus, the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews, the God of Islam, the God of the Mormons, etc. Most believers, who have chosen to believe in God, have somehow chosen that God who was believed in by their parents or who is believed in by most of the people in their local community. Is it not a wonder that God who is omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of the universe, is of such a different character in Arabia, India, Israel, and North America? God is apparently not very universal! But, as a man-made idea, this makes sense. Those who choose to believe, choose to belong to the local club. Why choose to be an outcast in one's home town? So, there is very little tendency to stray from the local dogma. Of course, a few hundred years ago, any straying was likely to result in one's death as a heretic in Christian regions. Today, any straying in the Islamic regions is still cause for one's execution. The clubs have not always been voluntary.
This fact that the clubs are local and have often not been kind to dissenters, makes it very reasonable to wonder if they are filled with cultists. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the belief and the fact that the beliefs have little regard for reality, makes it clear that the world's many religions are of the nature of cults. I do not think I will choose to add to these cults by adding one which believes in the three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I am just not enough motivated by a desire to exercise power over those who might join my cult.
There is a reason little publicized that I have heard from a number of men for being a Christian in the United States. It turns out that many men do not in fact believe in God or in Christianity. They simply find it convenient to pretend to believe. One of the reasons they regard as the most compelling for this pretense is that they think that they will be cut off from most women if they do not pretend to believe. It is usually not that they would not be able to win election to be President of the United States, no, it is that few women would ever choose to love them. I have heard this over and over again from intelligent men. They are right. Very many women will not love a man who has not made the arbitrary leap of faith to believe in the Christian version of God in these United States. You can be the best man possible and they will refuse you their love.
How odd that the religions, which are so commonly more supportive of men than women in their traditional beliefs, enjoy as their strongest advocates the loyalty of the vast majority of women in their local regions of practice? Modern Christianity has been under the primary influence of women so long now, that it has evolved into a rather feminized belief system. For instance, the Christians are now reluctant to believe in the existence of bullies, who must be opposed with force. Peace is a primary value, for which all freedoms can be traded. The Christians more and more believe that one must provide care for everyone through the medium of government. This is the maternal instinct writ large on the national scale. So, we have the Nanny State, more and more supported by Christians and women. More and more, the churches wish to be non-confrontational, which is always popular with women, who as they have taken over the public education system, have also made that a primary concern in the dogmas of public education. There is the commitment to not hurting anyone's feelings, which has materialized as political correctness restrictions on free speech, and widely practiced in the Christian churches and the public education system. The belief that everyone means to be nice, that no conflict can be allowed to occur, that peace is achieved when one party refuses to fight, that everyone's feelings are to be respected, except one's own feelings, and everyone must be mothered as an adolescent is becoming the rule wherever women rule. More and more they rule the churches and public education, making it difficult for a masculine, reality-first man to find a home in either.
OK, so if I must simply choose to believe and then I have religion, why should I not choose to believe that the fate of the universe and the human race is determined by three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I could exercise my creative urges by thinking up a religion of my own creation. I could emulate Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, and Joseph Smith Jr., except I could readily invent a much better religion, one which held human life in much higher regard than do the religions of the past. However, my arbitrary belief in the three gnomes would already undermine what man needs most to live his life well. What he most needs is a respect for reality, for the power of his own mind to know reality, and for his ability to live his life better because he understands reality and the requirements of the well-lived life. Rather than consign his fate to the three gnomes, it is critical that he assume the responsibility for knowing reality and for managing his own life. If man truly wishes to achieve his happiness, then he must assume these personal responsibilities.
This man has no need for a vanishing God. He understands that if God comes into existence only to the extent that he arbitrary chooses to believe in God, then God is man-made. In effect, man is God. Man has the means to know reality and man's good is the Good. For something to be good, it must be good for that being who can act to gain or to keep that good. Something can be good for a man. It is not at all clear that anything is good for a God, given the usual vague ways in which God is defined or left as a very vacuous concept. But, if we believe that God is Good, then perhaps we should see what is good for man and call that God. Then, if we can determine what is good for a man, we could come to know what his God should be. But, it is really better if we simply cut off all of this God and religion tradition and start with a cleaner and clearer way of thinking about ethics and what is good for man. These issues are complex enough without all of this prehistoric and ancient baggage. Indeed, the contents of that baggage are a disorganized, contradictory, and irrational mess. Modern man should be better able to think out the issues of ethics and value better than a bunch of ignorant ancients or medieval flim-flam artists.
The god that most people believe in now is not really a universal God. No, he is a local God. There are the gods of the Hindus, the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews, the God of Islam, the God of the Mormons, etc. Most believers, who have chosen to believe in God, have somehow chosen that God who was believed in by their parents or who is believed in by most of the people in their local community. Is it not a wonder that God who is omni-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of the universe, is of such a different character in Arabia, India, Israel, and North America? God is apparently not very universal! But, as a man-made idea, this makes sense. Those who choose to believe, choose to belong to the local club. Why choose to be an outcast in one's home town? So, there is very little tendency to stray from the local dogma. Of course, a few hundred years ago, any straying was likely to result in one's death as a heretic in Christian regions. Today, any straying in the Islamic regions is still cause for one's execution. The clubs have not always been voluntary.
This fact that the clubs are local and have often not been kind to dissenters, makes it very reasonable to wonder if they are filled with cultists. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the belief and the fact that the beliefs have little regard for reality, makes it clear that the world's many religions are of the nature of cults. I do not think I will choose to add to these cults by adding one which believes in the three gnomes living in a cave on the dark side of the moon. I am just not enough motivated by a desire to exercise power over those who might join my cult.
There is a reason little publicized that I have heard from a number of men for being a Christian in the United States. It turns out that many men do not in fact believe in God or in Christianity. They simply find it convenient to pretend to believe. One of the reasons they regard as the most compelling for this pretense is that they think that they will be cut off from most women if they do not pretend to believe. It is usually not that they would not be able to win election to be President of the United States, no, it is that few women would ever choose to love them. I have heard this over and over again from intelligent men. They are right. Very many women will not love a man who has not made the arbitrary leap of faith to believe in the Christian version of God in these United States. You can be the best man possible and they will refuse you their love.
How odd that the religions, which are so commonly more supportive of men than women in their traditional beliefs, enjoy as their strongest advocates the loyalty of the vast majority of women in their local regions of practice? Modern Christianity has been under the primary influence of women so long now, that it has evolved into a rather feminized belief system. For instance, the Christians are now reluctant to believe in the existence of bullies, who must be opposed with force. Peace is a primary value, for which all freedoms can be traded. The Christians more and more believe that one must provide care for everyone through the medium of government. This is the maternal instinct writ large on the national scale. So, we have the Nanny State, more and more supported by Christians and women. More and more, the churches wish to be non-confrontational, which is always popular with women, who as they have taken over the public education system, have also made that a primary concern in the dogmas of public education. There is the commitment to not hurting anyone's feelings, which has materialized as political correctness restrictions on free speech, and widely practiced in the Christian churches and the public education system. The belief that everyone means to be nice, that no conflict can be allowed to occur, that peace is achieved when one party refuses to fight, that everyone's feelings are to be respected, except one's own feelings, and everyone must be mothered as an adolescent is becoming the rule wherever women rule. More and more they rule the churches and public education, making it difficult for a masculine, reality-first man to find a home in either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
