It always amazes me when one can speak about justice, and in the same breath, deny justice to a group based on them simply being seen as “others.” Justin Tobin did exactly this in his opinion letter. When we look at his letter, it becomes clear [...]]]> Appeals court ruling on Prop 8 appalling.

It always amazes me when one can speak about justice, and in the same breath, deny justice to a group based on them simply being seen as “others.” Justin Tobin did exactly this in his opinion letter. When we look at his letter, it becomes clear that his objection is not on the grounds of justice, but on the grounds that homosexuals are not good enough. It is nothing more than a blatant attack on a group he considers to be “other.”

It is that same mentality that fueled a number of atrocities in our country, from slavery, to the Chinese Expulsion Act, to the interment of Japanese, many of which were American citizens. Each one of these acts was based on intolerance, and fear/hatred of the “other.” In this intolerance, justice is not upheld, but thrown out the window. We continue seeing just this with such acts of injustice as denying people the right to marry, simply because they are seen a different.

This injustice is often supported by ignorant statements, or purposely skewed research, which is heavily biased. Case in point, Tobin claims that “same-sex marriages has a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of children.” It is true that you can find such research; however, it usually disagrees with the majority of research that is done. In this case, study after study shows that same-sex parents are good parents, and raise well-adjusted children. This is something that Child Welfare League of America, the National Adoption Center, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association agree with. Sure, one can find organizations that disagree; however, that disagreement usually stems from the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals. Simply, it is based on intolerance.

In the end though, Proposition 8 was an unjust law, that barely passed in the first place. Throughout history, we have seen many unjust laws get past; however, it is not something that we should stand for. To try to make certain individuals second class citizens, simply because they are seen as different has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with hatred and fear. We should be glad that we have judges who have a moral obligation to try to rectify various injustices, and we should hope that continues. We, as a country, do not need to repeat the injustice we have seen in our history.

I first saw this article a few days ago. My first reaction was anger. Anger that such intolerance was promoted. That such intolerance was allowed to cause so much pain and continues to allow it. My second reaction was renewed determination, a determination to help change this [...]]]> One Town’s War on Gay Teens

I first saw this article a few days ago. My first reaction was anger. Anger that such intolerance was promoted. That such intolerance was allowed to cause so much pain and continues to allow it. My second reaction was renewed determination, a determination to help change this intolerance. If we want to see a change in this world, we need to be that change. So today we are announcing our first major step in that direction of change.

We are beginning our first major fundraiser in order to help spread tolerance through education. In September we will be hosting our first public presentation in regards to spreading tolerance towards homosexuality. This presentation will consist of our Houdiniesque show, which is a combination of a magic, mentalist, and comedy act, and a discussion regarding homosexuality.

Our goal is to raise, at minimum, 5-10 thousand dollars in order to further this mission of tolerance. We are asking you to help us with that.  In the course of the next month, we will be organizing a number of giveaways in order to reward those who support this cause.

In conjunction with this fundraiser, we will also be directly going after individuals who run organizations or in the media who  promote intolerance towards homosexuals.  No longer can we stand back and allow such individuals to spread their hate and bigotry any longer.

We look forward to your participation in this endeavor, and are excited to become the change we want to see in our community.

Throughout history, we have seen many great individuals sacrifice themselves in order to promote an idea or message they thought would be for the betterment of humankind. Many of these individuals did make great impacts on the world, which had long lasting impacts. Others simply have [...]]]> The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective

Throughout history, we have seen many great individuals sacrifice themselves in order to promote an idea or message they thought would be for the betterment of humankind. Many of these individuals did make great impacts on the world, which had long lasting impacts. Others simply have been lost to the sands of history. One such sacrifice was that of Jesus. Yet, it is also one largely misunderstood, or even denied by various individuals. With a closer, historical look, we can once again see what his sacrifice was, and whether it still effects the world today.

The Collins English Dictionary defines a sacrifice as “a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil.” Such a definition can be problematic in regards to it being quite subjective. For instance, does surrendering ones life, even though they believe that death is not the end, constitute a sacrifice? Personally, I believe that such is still a sacrifice, as I do not think that a sacrifice is negated by the possibility of a reward. And as per the above definition, gaining something more desirable is part of the sacrificial experience. More so, if we put such a stipulation on a sacrifice, then we run into the problem of denying the sacrifice a many great men and women.

When we look at Jesus, we see that there was a surrendering of something of value. Most of use would agree that there is value in a human life. Looking at the historical figure which is Jesus (here I do have to differentiate from the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The Jesus is faith is the idea of Jesus that has been formed within the religious mind. The Jesus of history is the figure that did in fact exist. To find the Jesus of history, one has to strip the Biblical character of the myth and legends that formed around this persona later on. When we look at the Jesus of history, we see a figure that was an itinerate preacher, that went up against the authority, and was subsequently crucified. The resurrection dwells in the realm of the Jesus of faith), he does surrender his life. We see him being crucified by the Romans.

However, surrendering one’s life is not the only requirement. The surrendering, in this case, death, has to bring about something of greater value or prevent evil. And this is the important part here. From a Christian perspective, we can see a clear benefit from the death of Jesus. However, we are not looking at this from a perspective of faith, but from a secular point of view. In order to see it from a secular perspective, we must delve into the historical account of Jesus.

The first thing that we must examine is the message that Jesus preached and see whether or not it was a message that could have led to his death. We see with many other individuals who sacrificed themselves, it was for a message or an idea. A great example would be Martin Luther King Jr. It was his message, that conveyed an idea, that motivated his assassination. We see a clear connection between the message, and assassination. More important, he was aware of the possibility that he would die as a result of the message he was preaching.

So what was the message that Jesus preached? We may never be able to completely know exactly what Jesus taught, as he never left us with any sermons. However, we can gain a general idea regarding what Jesus taught. There are a few clues within the material available to us that can shine a light on his teachings. The first important clue is an event we can be positive occurred. That is the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. This is an event scholars agree is historical for a variety of reasons, including that it is an embarrassing story.

The baptism of Jesus by John is important as it tells us something concrete about the ideology of Jesus (at least at one point in time). There are a few reasons as to why Jesus would go to John to be baptized. It is nearly a given that Jesus subscribed to the teachings of John, otherwise there would be little reason for him to purposely go to John. Given that point, it may also be suggested that Jesus was in fact a disciple of John (there are a number of scholars who propose this very idea; however, it is not a point that can be stated with complete certainty). With this being so, by looking at the teachings of John the Baptist, we can get a glimpse into the teachings of Jesus. Now, we only have limited sources on John, but what we can gather is that he taught that the Kingdom of God would soon replace the Earthly kingdom (which was Rome at that time).

Looking at the sources we have on Jesus, this teaching seemed to remain within his teachings as well. More so, we see this teaching being carried on by Paul, so we can be reasonably sure that Jesus also continued on with this sort of teaching. He also expanded on this teaching though. Another teaching we can be sure Jesus had was one of acceptance. In the Gospels, there are a number of instances in which Jesus is criticized for keeping the company of tax collectors, or other individuals seen to be lower or outcasts. One could sum up much of his teachings with the “golden rule,” love your neighbor as yourself (this was an idea that we see also stretched to Paul. However, we see other Jews at that time saying the same basic idea). These two teachings, the one regarding the Kingdom of God, and that of acceptance, were intimately linked.

Having this background, we can see a clear reason why the message Jesus was preaching would have promoted his death. He was preaching a message that challenged the Roman Empire. By claiming that the Kingdom of God would replace the Roman Empire, it would have been a challenge to the Roman authorities. Combined with his actions in the Temple (the overturning of the tables and driving people out, which can be seen as a symbolic destruction of the Temple, which would have been apart of the Kingdom of God teaching), his fate was sealed. Importantly though, Jesus would have been well aware of what his actions could lead to, as he would have been exposed to just that throughout his life. It was the same basic reason why John the Baptist, who Jesus was connected to, had been executed as well.

Much like Martin Luther King Jr., we see a message which was connected to the death of the figure. Both of these individuals had a message that at their basis taught acceptance (or equality). And each knew that their messages, the ideas they were spreading, had the possibility of leading to their deaths. Yet both continued teaching this idea, which eventually led to them sacrificing their lives.

The message that both of these individuals had was one of greater value than one life. As in their messages, they taught that all life had value. They taught a message that have effected great numbers of people (in fact, the teachings of Jesus effected the ideologies of King as well), and in turn, cause additional people to help spread the idea of acceptance and equality. It is a message that transcends religions, or philosophies. It is one that all can embrace, and see the value in it. And with that, we can see the sacrifice of Jesus in a secular manner; in a manner that all should be able to relate to.

The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment [...]]]> This is the first part of a small series of articles I will be presenting on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible.

The Bible has been used to justify many forms of intolerance. During the early years of the United States, the Bible was used by some to justify slavery and the horrible treatment of anyone who was not a white male. Others have used it in order to justify persecution of people of various ideas, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. To an extreme, it has been used to justify the killing of innocent people simply because they were different, as well as genocide.

Today, one of the most widespread uses of the Bible in order to justify intolerance has come in the form of the opposition to homosexuality. This justification, by hiding behind one’s Bible, has caused Christianity as a whole to suffer. Like many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or God, personal prejudices and ideals are at fault, not a religion or a “Holy” book. This is true in the case of homosexuality as well.

At the same time, instead of focusing on the real problem causing opposition to homosexuality, many focus on demonizing a religion that is not at fault. By focusing on Christianity, or the Bible as the reason to why individuals oppose homosexuality, the real problem is being masked. It is true that various Christians have had a tendency to use the Bible in justifying their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong or to an extreme, an abomination. However, such claims are primarily being motivated by those individuals personal biases. When the Bible is consulted, there is a different picture of homosexuality that is presented.

Most importantly, the idea of homosexuality did not exist in the time periods in which the books of the Bible were being written. The notion of sexual orientation was not developed until relatively recent times. For the writers of the Bible, the idea of homosexuality is completely foreign concept. It has only been over time, and repetition, that the idea of homosexuality has been attached to the Bible.

What we see in the Bible instead is not the condemnation of a sexual orientation, but that of an act. That act specifically being a male lying with another male as he would do so with a female (Lev. 18:22). Or, to put it simply, the act of male anal intercourse. Two chapters later, in Leviticus 22:13, one can read that the penalty for this act is death. However, this all needs to be put into a more complete perspective.

As I said earlier, these verses do not deal with homosexuality, but with an act. That act being male anal intercourse. Now, it is not only homosexuals (and in fact, many homosexuals do not engage in this act anyway. It must be remembered that females can also be homosexual) who engage in male anal intercourse. When we examine this act in the Bible, we see that it is not associated by those who would be deemed homosexuals, but it is portrayed as an act of force (rape), associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection. Even in our present society, there are many cases in which a heterosexual male will engage in male anal intercourse. And the same motivation is still common for this act; humiliation, revenge, and subjection.

It is important to read the verses for what they are, and not to read one’s own preconceived biases into them. For centuries, that has been the problem regarding these verses. Instead of understanding what they mean, they have been used to justify one own’s prejudices. By doing so, individuals have been able to hide behind the Bible instead of just admitting to their own intolerances.

For a discussion on this, go to Religious Forums or at my Facebook Page.