It's About Time

Marriage is one of those weird things in the Bible. The biblical viewpoint on marriage seems to change every so often, but there’s some actually good reasons for that, ranging from the reality of the times to philosophical issues that were being raised. In light of the recent legal victories it may be enlightening to look at those reasons.

In the early days of the Jewish nation, prior to the Exodus, marriage was originally for inheritance purposes. Originally, in a small tribe, where everyone shared everything, marriage was simply a ritual to establish that two people cared about each other, and to allow the relationship to grow. If the relationship died, it was nothing for both sides to go different ways, with the children going with the mother. With tribal support divorce didn’t really matter.

However, as people acquired more property and it was important to keep that property in the family. In order to make sure that the lines of inheritance were clear, and so steps needed to be taken to insure that. Entire sections of contract law were created, and marriage became part of that. It’s interesting how much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy look at inheritance and what happens when one part of a couple dies. It didn’t help that marriage was seen as a way to cement alliances, which also acted to increase the length of marriages; the alliance would only last as long as the marriage, so long marriages were obviously encouraged.

It’s also about this time that marriage went from being a matter of convenience to a life-long commitment; easy divorce complicated inheritance in a barely literate society. It was just too hard track couples that could split and remarry with someone else, so the commitment increased to facilitate the new laws. Also, there were advantages to both parties; the security gained from the arrangement helped both sides. Although initially there were a number of simple permutations, such as a man having a wife and a lover, who could be a woman or man as long as the lover was kept hidden; when exposed the relationship became a problem.

This is also started nailing non-heterosexual long-term relationships. Since marriage was seen as an adult relationship, and a way to continue the species, getting married was seen as more important than same-sex relationships, and so same-sex relationships were seen as distractions; nice distractions, but not really important compared to the business of procreation. As such legal steps started being taken to eliminate them from society. Even in the New Testament, when divorce was okayed, the idea was that marriage was for procreation, and that the idea of romance was for the young, especially as it would interfere with being properly devoted.

Over the millennia the idea that marriage was for heterosexuals did nothing but gain strength. Although there were exceptions, such a ceremony where monks could swear their love to each other, in general marriage itself was only for mixed couples. This started losing strength in the 1800s, as there more homosexual long-term relationships and the couples were willing to risk prison sentences, death, even deportation for their love. Although the inheritance laws could easily handle the situation, tradition had sunk in too deep for lawmakers to really do anything about reversing it.

Backing up a step: Less modern societies, such as Native American tribes, were more allowing of same-sex relationships. There were two reasons for this: The first is that inheritance rules didn’t really exist; most property was shared by the tribe, as were child-rearing duties, and so who was in love with who didn’t really matter. There is also that once sexuality was determined gender didn’t matter; it was just easier that way. In essence, as long as you acted like you were expected to, and contributed to the tribe, you were good to go. Once you started being of no use, sexuality really didn’t matter. So less modern groups had fewer problems with a person’s sexuality as it didn’t matter as long as they were pulling their weight.

It really wasn’t until the late 1960s that homosexual marriage became an issue. It really became an issue when the AIDS virus hit and homosexual partners were unable to console their partners. This really started adding fuel to the fire, as the rights for married couples became highlighted and tossed in the face of homosexual partners. At this point the gay marriage movement really started taking off. There were plenty of set-backs, such as DADT and DOMA as well as state amendments defining marriage as only possible between men and women. Although civil unions were allowed, they didn’t have the full force of an actual marriage, especially on any level that really matters. It was a gesture, but ultimately a hollow one. Even as states decided that they would allow gay marriage, DOMA ensured that those marriages would only be legal in states where gay marriage was legal. Worse, California passed Proposition 8, important because other states eventually follow its lead.

With the repeal of DADT, the striking down of DOMA, and the elimination of Proposition 8 from the playing field, gay marriage has an actual chance of spreading. Although the struggle is just beginning at least it has a chance now. We are no longer dependent on marriage for inheritance, and those laws can handle just about anything. Although there are still the zealots holding us back, those zealots are becoming quieter every year. We will eventually get to the point where love is all that matters, but that day is still a few years off. Hopefully we will get to that point sooner than later; it has definitely been a long time coming.

Why would you want to prove a negative?

In 1992 The Amazing Randi was tired of dealing with fakes and so announced that “You can’t prove a negative”; specifically, he stated that telepathy, for example, cannot be proven, and that someone who claims that telepathy exists must prove its existence. Suffice to say that this has been applied to deities as well.

This is one of those arguments that works well in theory, but not so well in practice. The basic premise behind the argument is that belief in a deity is exactly that, a belief and that the deity does not actually exist. Of course, should the deity actually exist it falls upon the believer to prove that the deity in question exists. It’s a simple argument, and as such welcome in discussions of religion or, more importantly, atheism.

The problem is that it’s, well, a simple argument. This is a great argument for when you haven’t seen something in a few years and want others to agree with you that it doesn’t exist anymore, but that’s about it. Even lawyers admit that this is pretty much an argument based on pragmatism rather than fact; advocates recognize that at some point a person must acknowledge that it’s time to move on and the person’s effects and legal issues need to be dealt with. However, biologists hate this argument; they cite too many animals that have been called “extinct” only to pop up a few years later. Even when they are sure they really aren’t, and it makes for some interesting debates in their circles.

The problem is that this is an argument that focuses on pure logic and ignores reality; it’s been noted that you can logic away something that is standing right in front of you and this is one of those kind of arguments. Although the logic is reasonable the problem is that it fails in reality. Even with the phenomena Randi was complaining with there is some proof, not enough granted to call it dependable but enough to make experimentation interesting. The argument has issues applying to the phenomena it was created for.

When it comes to deities it gets weirder. The problem is that deities are notoriously good at playing hide and seek, and that they actually prefer a hands-off approach when possible; with a few notable exceptions most prefer a strategic nudge rather than an obvious intervention. This makes it interesting to prove their existence, making it hard for even the most devout believer to prove that they exist. If the evidence of parapsychological phenomena is debated, and there are some actual positive results, it can be downright difficult to present any evidence to someone that refuses to admit that the evidence is valid.

Sooo….Where are we? The evidence isn’t exactly compelling, as it is based mostly on interpretation rather than straight evidence, and it comes from someone with a definite bias. At the same time this is something that the results of either side would be ignored by the other side unless the findings were against the bias, making for some interesting arguments. Although the argument itself has some issues, the logic is reasonable even if there are some issues applying to reality. It’s a great sound bite, but it should be excised from serious discussion…

Fanatics Suck

Fanaticism to any cause needs to be avoided. Although you usually see it most in theists, it applies to any “ism”. It blinds you to any facts that would be readily apparent to any else if they disagree with your hypothesis, give you tunnel vision so that you only see what is directly ahead, and enforce a bunker mentality where you see nothing but attacks. That last one creates a really nasty vicious circle; because you see nothing but attacks you tend hunker down even more, making all of the rest even worse until you hit the point where you are little more than a paranoid, obsessed wreck.

It also tends to decrease your ability to think critically. Look at the anti-vaccine crowd; any evil that they can prescribe to vaccines they do, from an increased chance to actually get the disease being treated to it as a cause of autism. Doctors already know that there is a chance of getting the disease from a vaccine as not all the germs are dead, so that is a recognized risk, but at the same time children have little chance to become autistic due to shots. Yes, there was a report, but it has been so thoroughly debunked that the doctor in charge of it has lost his license to practice. Oh, and in case it comes up: Yes, even the Amish get vaccinated.

My personal favorite symbol has to be women not being paid as much as men. The problem is that this is a faulty measurement. If women worked the same hours as men, received the same promotions as men, and worked the same jobs as men, it would be valid, but none of those are true. Women only work about 87% as many hours as many (32 vs 36 weekly, with 16 days off per year vs. 14) and tend to work safer, less financially rewarding jobs; secretary, teacher, and nurse are the top three jobs for women. Worse, they tend to accept promotions only 32% of the time compared to 76% for men. You also have that women tend to own their own businesses or freelance more than men; that throws of the average as well. All in all comparing wages just doesn’t work as women do not get paid as much as men; as the trade-off is better health and a longer life, there may actually be something to it.

The same applies to men who think that their private spots are under attack. There is some logic to it; it seems that every year there is some court case where a woman sues in order to get access to mens locker rooms (it makes sense, as deals are brokered as they shower, but generally it’s a conversation continued from elsewhere). However, for some reason too many guys, usually teenagers, see MMO servers as an escape from women, so when women start showing up in male-ruled games, such as Call of Duty or even WoW, they verbally lash out at the women, and sometimes it can get intense. Although you can call in an admin, a better idea is to insult the person back on the same level; just trust me, it works better than you would think.

So, stop being a fanatic. Things aren’t as bad you may think they are, and sometimes are a lot better than you think. So relax, and you will hopefully live a little longer.

Is Religion Something to Pursue?

One of the arguments that is used to discredit religion is whether or not it makes sense in a modern world. The question is whether or not a religion based on the philosophies that are over two thousand years old have any applicability to our lives today. With all that is said and done, it does seem weird that we place a large amount of faith in a book written by forty different authors over the better part of a millennia that mentions how to beat your slave and rape your women. Nonetheless, there are a lot of good reasons.

I’m not going to argue the scientific validity or cherry-picking verses here; those are lectures for another day. What I am going to point out is that The Bible does have a lot of great advice if you bother paying attention; there’s a reason it has lasted so long. There is a lot to be gained by looking at it every so often, and bothering to even read it. We need to remember that it’s a metaphorical construct and that some of its tenets may not have gone by the wayside; this is not cherry-picking so much as it recognizing that The Bible is the Living Word. It is meant to change, just like a living being, to adapt to new challenges in order to overcome them.

Beyond The Bible, there are other advantages to being part of a church. Church-goers tend to live longer (a full five years longer), and there is always the added advantage of resources. One person focused on a problem can sometimes do miracles; imagine what can happen when you get an entire group of people focused on that problem. People tend to pull together in a crisis; nothing makes a group forget its internal bickering like an outside attack. People get organized when there is a call, be it someone needing help, a natural crisis, or just to see if they can make life easier for each other.

This is not to say that some groups do wrong in groups; the WBC is probably the best example of that. This is the problem of groups; the same group that forms a bucket brigade without effort to save a building from fire can form a lynch mob just as easily. That is something that we need to be beware of when we organize; we need to form groups intelligently and with wisdom rather than merely passion. This is not to say that we should remove passion from the equation, but that it should serve our will, not our will serving our passion. We are at our best when we are challenged and we attack that challenge intelligently rather than merely passionately.

We also need a common framework for communication. Any good text does that; it gives the group a means to quickly understand each other. By using The Bible, we have a way to quickly communicate information using metaphors when our other words fail us, giving us another way to communicate. We can also show that some problems, such as rebellious youth or husbands and wives seeming to be in different world, are universal and age-old, which is an odd comfort; in an ever-changing world, it is nice to know that some things never really change. That it allows communication between believers of the past and modern as well as between groups of modern believers makes it a powerful book.

So does religion in a modern world make sense? As long as it is a force for good, yes; nothing is more powerful than a group sharing the same motivation with a common ground. Yes, this also means that it can be a formidable power for evil, and that needs to be avoided at all costs. But the benefits ultimately outweigh the bad, and that is something that needs to be considered. We as believers must constantly ask ourselves if which we are serving, not as doubt but to ensure that our faith isn’t misguided. As long as we are not afraid to ask if we are doing the right thing, we should be okay. We just need to less fearful of asking the wrong question than doing the right thing.

HItler and the Destruction of the German Church

The problem with history is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It is a parade of events, some of which may have happened in the distant past, that affect the present. In order to properly understand the past sometimes we need to look at a number of different issues.

Nazi Germany happened because of a number of different events that coalesced into some serious nastiness. The major event is the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. After World War I, Europe and the United States wanted revenge; they wanted payback for all that they had suffered and were willing to do almost anything to get that payback. That desire severely screwed the country’s economics, to the point that there simply was not enough money to buy anything with. It was a country ripe for someone to take over and solve its problems

When Hitler started taking over, he needed to do a number of different things in order to properly do so. So he did a number of different things to do so. First, he needed a scapegoat, and decided to go after the most effective target: The Jews. Europeans traditionally avoided banking for the most part; there was the issue that money was considered evil (it was considered the root of all evils, after all), and so dealing with money was something no one wanted to do for most of Europe’s history. As Jews were considered outside normal society they were able to deal with money, and so they eventually took over the dealing with money, as well as trading in general. Although different groups took over the banking industry over time, it nonetheless established a link between Jews and money. This made them an obvious scapegoat in a financially depressed country, and Hitler took advantage of that.

Once he had his scapegoat in place, his ascent began. In order to stay in charge, he needed to control how people thought. Unlike Russia and China, Hitler decided to subvert religion. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that religion must serve the needs of the country, and so he started endorsing the Deutsche Christen (German Christians) over the Catholic Church; not only did the German Christians support the Nazi Party, but they also had all of the right tenets; they were hostile to Jews (including excluding the Old Testament from their sacred scriptures), and the Nazi Party was able to combine pagan and Roman symbology with their message, assuring that Hitler would serve as a messiah. The Catholic Church also endorsed the Central Party, the main competition of the Nazi Party. Eventually the Catholic Church would seek a concordat with the Nazi Party in order to protect their followers that would effectively keep it out of Germany’s affairs.

So, not only did Hitler find the perfect scapegoat, and was then able to subvert a religious organization to aid his ascent and get another to back off. The German Christians were subverted on a number of levels; not only were leaders promised power, but those that were against the take-over were eliminated and replaced by Nazi Party members, and was soon able to influence the laity into doing pretty much anything. Ironically, Hitler had plans to eliminate all churches after the war, seeing Christianity as something that should be eliminated as it was incompatible with Nazism due to its Jewish origins.

Summing up: In order to solve Germany’s issues, Hitler was going to take Germany to war. In order to gain support, he subverted the local church. Once the war was over, he was planning on eliminating same church. Just something to consider when the whole “Hitler as Christian” thing comes up…