Gay Discrimination In Kansas to Refuse Service on Religious Grounds

Whilst the Obama administration promises at the federal level to recognise equal marriage, the state of Kansas is trying under the guise of religious freedom to deny gay citizens the same rights and privileges as everyone else:

When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome. [Slate]

How can someone advocate anti-gay discrimination as a matter of religious discrimination?

Step forward Representative Macheers, who has seen the bill passed to be considered next by the Kansas Senate:

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful. … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.” [Source]

This bill is a shield for religious anti-gay bigotry. Allowing citizens to legally behave as active anti-Samaritans to other citizens refusing them not just a commercial undertaking, but dignity owed to every person with human needs of food, shelter, entertainment and celebration. One that cannot be supplied based on the recipients creed, colour or sexual orientation without making citizens unequal, less than human.

Watching gay people eat in your restaurant is not, for the proprietor that sees homosexuality as an abomination, religious discrimination. You may think it wrong, but remember you are under no obligation to have same sex, let alone a same sex marriage, with such patrons. Your rights here are protected.

No one gets to undermine the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of law abiding citizens. I trust the majority of people in Kansas will understand that threat by law makers to the common good by such discrimination. No one should by legal fiat impose their religion on another.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Not Beholden But Free To Think

If you are not already reading “Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal” by Miles Kimble I encourage you to do so. He shows that it is not unusual for us economists to be interested in matters like religion. As such a Homo economicus I am not alone in a Godless universe.

Noah Smith has guest posted on there, arguing that belief in God, whether or not there is a God, is beneficial for you so do it. But try and be a good human being by not being dogmatic about it:

But there is a way to avoid these dangers: Don’t subscribe to a religious dogma. Pick and choose your religious beliefs. Yes, we are all born with the ability to do this – we don’t need any chip in our brain. Don’t believe that God tells you that you’re superior to other people. Don’t believe that God commands you to wage holy war against the infidel. Don’t believe that God trivializes the life you’re living now.

 

But for many people, believing in God can make their lives better. If you’re one of these people, then go for it. Believe in God. And believe in a God that tells you to do stuff that’s good for your life – to treat other people well, be happy, work hard, etc. Believe these things not because you have evidence for them, and not because you desire them to be true, but because it behooves you to believe them.

 

“OK,” you may say, “but I’m not a pragmatist. I’m a positivist. I believe only in things I have evidence for. I value objective truth.” Fine, Mr. Positivist. I will not denigrate your epistemology. Have fun wondering whether or not you live in the Matrix!

 

The call for religious humanism which is personal to yourself sounds great. No problem cherry picking verses and root yourself in the moment to be a better human being than you would be. All without fundamentalist belief because if counter thinking benefits you do it. Do not just eat from the tree of knowledge,  go a la carte from the world’s religions,  mix and match – using something other than dogma, theology or divine sanction to decide if ethical. 

Whether we call such ideas religious, philosophy, ethics or morality we are always attempting to rationalize our personal beliefs. For me the thing to stress is not that Noah says it benefits you to believe in God (I recognize atheist bait when I see it and I ain’t biting), but it benefits you to work out what behooves you as a human being beholden to no other entity and yet thinking ethically. When you have to think for yourself what  behooves you not only does the chance for greater happiness await you – some actual thinking and hard graft is called for.

Noah is not offering you freedom or liberty to make it up as you go along – he is inviting you to think critically about whether something is beneficial. To be skeptical about something which is dogmatic. This is empowering, but with it comes responsibility when applying freethinking. To know things as they are. Whether we be in a matrix or not.

 

Bertrand Russell, an empiricist that would know to ignore a matrix loop fallacy, said:

Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires.

Believing in something that profits you might, if you dare to think about it, behoove you to decide whether it is a red pill or a blue pill you have taken. Part of the adventure in life, is you may never be certain which is in the hand outstretched to you. For me humanism, without the religion, is allowing me to go deeper down the rabbit hole.

I invite you to come underground and see how far it goes without making a promise that it might profit you, but that it might just be more real, and that makes the adventure more worthwhile as you dig deep to push the boundaries of our understanding. 

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

 

 

 

 

Albert Einstein on Scientists Praying and Belief

Einstein was sent a letter by a school girl about prayer. His answer was honest and captured the magic of reality.

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis’s class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

Einstein replied promptly:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

Einstein was no theist as his reply above shows. He made clear:

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” [Source]

He rejected calling himself an atheist, considering that lacked humility and appreciation of the sheer beauty that radiated from the cosmos. He was opposed to vocal atheism for seeming to reject that emotional awed response, as he was against the espousing of a personal God. Perhaps he would say seeing the new atheist debate that the

“struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope” and cultivate the “Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.” [ibid]

The “God Letter” shows he rejected the God of the Bible as to do with the infancy of our species and trying to represent his position as deist where he said:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” [Source]

Misses that he saw in his time the human race as still quite childlike in appreciating how the universe is. Which I suspect is why he wrote so quickly back to the little girl. Einstein knew we needed to move beyond a religiosity that was theistic, pantheist and yes deist too. His concern with atheism was that it rejected the wonder of everything for harsh calculations, and cold realities. By lacking such spirit we would lack warmth as human beings.

I would hope he would see in the current debate that it was religion, and not a lack of appreciation for the sublime nature of the universe, which was the target for atheists. Our understanding of the natural world through science, and using our knowledge of the world to better how we all live, is something humanity can get together on. A humanism that transcends faith and non faith with improving and valuing.

Regardless of how it all may have all began.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

We Need Richard Dawkins And You

Despite having written “The God Delusion” which inspired me and others to be involved in the secular movement an argument goes that Richard Dawkins has had his day, a bit like a star footballer approaching retirement. His style of play is seen as ineffective and embarrassing as we are urged to move to civil engagement and reconciliation with believers. Turning keyboards into ploughshares will apparently herald a new age of reasonable reason.

Dawkins for me is the star defender of the team – he tackles hard. You do not want angels playing in that position; there will be times when the other side will shout for a booking let alone a sending off. But the game would be lost without that talent and determination regularly being employed on the pitch.

Watching Dawkins debate Deepak Chopra reminded me why I traveled thousands of miles to support the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Dawkins’ passion for not just calling out pseudo science but explaining what the science actually is, expressing real poetry in how things are without needing to imagine what we cannot know. Quite simply it is enthralling to hear complex subjects so beautifully explained by Dawkins.

I remember listening to a radio interview when a recovering drug addict phoned to say his new found Christian faith helped him and who was Dawkins to knock that? Richard replied that he had no desire to do so and wished him well. So much for the uncaring atheist bashing professor “The Guardian” article tried to paint to besmirch him recently.

Twitter does not do full justice to Dawkins, but his intellectual capacity to aid public understanding of science together with the resources he makes available to secular and atheist organisations makes a huge difference. Accusations of aloofness at someone who engages with the public on a social media platform, is the least of his worries in the hullabaloo.

For me this goes further than a culture war, or enjoying the argument on social media. People are suffering and dying because of attitudes which are defended as religious – or claimed simultaneously to be cultural yet still to be respected. For Dawkins this is no intellectual exercise but a moral imperative to speak out. How someone feels about a t-shirt really is not in the same league.

Though that did not stop Yvonne Ridley suggesting to me I must find the Jesus and Mo t-shirt as funny as the anti-semitic quenelle salute – because she said there is the empathy with how she feels about an image of the prophet. Religious cartoon satire worn at a student fair is the same as an inverse nazi salute on the railway tracks that led to a concentration camp where thousands were killed.

A t-shirt that says hi yet the image used (which do not forget means the cartoonist hides his identity for fear of reprisal) is somehow comparable emotionally with a disgusting gesture of fascism that killed millions. Sensibility is not sense when it comes to this view.

Religion needs challenging by one and all against apologists who misrepresent what religious freedom means as a way to reduce human rights. Sensibilities might be hurt, but bruised pride is the least of our worries in the grand scheme of things.

Debating tactics and strategy is all very well, and yes there will be times when free kicks might be awarded against Dawkins. It misses the nature of the game being played and the stakes involved. It’s not about winning player of the match, but calling out the harm done by religion and preventing it. Human rights, freedom of speech, contraception, to learn proper science at school and even men and women sitting or doing group work together. Even non religious institutions like University UK colluding with gender inequality unless challenged.

Dawkins with “The God Delusion” started a new wave of atheists. Not just to publicly declare there probably is no God, but to challenge the supernatural claims by which public policy is manipulated.

Secular activism needs you – it’s time to get off the bench. With a revamped OUT Campaign promised now is a good time to warm up. Join a secular society and get involved.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Canada: York University Gender Segregation Allows No Group Work

Professor Grayson has my every sympathy and support in denying a request from a student to be excused from group work so that he would not mix with female students, on non specified religious grounds. Both Islamic and Judaic scholars found no cause for this to be upheld:

The Judaic scholar found no problem
with an Orthodox Jew attending a co-ed group session. One of the
Islamic scholars, in turn, declared simply, “unless he is asked to
be physical with a female student, which I assume he isn’t, there
is absolutely no justification for not interacting with females in
public space.” [National Post]

Safe assumption that sociologists do not get physical with each other as part of university group work. The student concerned expressed their reasoning for choosing to do the course online:

“One of the main reasons that I have chosen
internet courses to complete my BA is due to my firm religious
beliefs, and part of that is the intermingling between men and
women,” he wrote, adding “it will not be possible for me to meet in
public with a group of women (the majority of my group) to complete
some of these tasks.” [ibidem]

When the student realised how indefatigable Professor Grayson was that allowing such dispensation would be a betrayal of women on the course, he withdrew his request and attended. However, despite his department and students on the course backing Grayson, the Dean ordered acquiescence on grounds that female students would be unaffected by the non presence of the
religious student.

Last night in twitter talking about the story – which actually happened earlier in the Autumn but has only just broken in the media – my concern was that dispensation from group work was given to online students that lived too far away. As such it could be considered a non compulsory requirement for all students taking the online course. The issue becomes whether such a request can be turned down based on minority religious grounds when other reasons would be considered valid for accommodation.

There is the rub for me as a secularist because I can deplore the reasoning of the student regarding women, calling it out for what it is. A request for special treatment of misogynistic attitudes on the fringes of religious faith in a secular  institution that regards men and women as equal. Yet the Dean has a point that the online course already made dispensations and so could accommodate a request (the reason immaterial) not to attend group work – and that a secular institution does not make a judgment on validity of religious claims. Which despite not knowing the religion of the student the Professor tried to by checking with religious scholars.

The Dean loses the argument finally by saying, well just do not tell female students about this so they do not get upset that we as a university consider valid sexist attitudes towards being in the company of women. The legal grounds in Canada are unclear whether the denial by the professor can be justified. Clearly a procedure needs to be in place at York University and I hope the student body is involved in setting. Though I get the feeling that procedure is the Dean deciding.

Hence this story going public, and the professor involving students and the department. It is a battle at a University which now is involved in the war of where claims of religious freedom should be trumped by gender equality as a civic virtue and human right. A secular institution needs to be loud and clear. The Dean needs to back down. My face saving suggestion would be a voluntary opt in or out of group work for online courses with no need to specify a
reason or make a core requirement to do group work to complete the
online course. [See first comment why no opt out if you attend University]

We cannot allow gender equality to be undermined by fringe sexist thinking – some accommodations are a surrender to what needs defending in society.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog