Hypocrite be thy name

And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.

So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.

Issues in "Pluralistic Marriages"

I understand and accept that religion can and does play an important role in many people's lives. However, I refuse to accept the degree to which many people force it to play a role. Lets face the truth, religion is completely subjective and based on nothing more than opinion. When people see problems being caused by religion it is generally because at least a handful of people have made it a problem. The same is true in a (religiously) pluralistic marriage.

Jim Burklo's "Pluralistic Marriage" is interesting and does bring up some important points. It never seems to tackle what I find to be one of the most important points. Conflicts within such mixed marriages are completely unnecessary. As I've already stated, religion is completely opinion based. Marriage is not (not that there aren't differnces of opinion in them). You go to bed and wake up every day with the person you married. Even if you sometimes take things for granted, there are any number of examples of how real your relationship is. Shouldn't the love for your partner trump some theoretical ideas no matter how important those ideas are? You may never "know" that God exists, that there is an after life, or that your chosen faith has any merit. You can know that you have a loving relationship, otherwise why'd you get married in the first place.

Ultimately, I think if religion is what divides you then you have some serious questions to ask yourself. Was your relationship ever that well founded? If faith can divide people who love each other why should it be seen as good in any way? If religion is the wonderful thing that many want to believe it to be shouldn't it encourage love and relationships regardless of socio-cultural differences?

More humanist than religious

Even though I cannot definitively disprove the existence of God or similar supernatural entities/forces. I am certain that at the very least the conservative/fundamentalist interpretation of such things is utter bullshit. I had this reconfirmed to some degree this weekend. I, an atheist, attended a homosexual wedding within the walls of a Christian church. I'm pretty sure that with the size of attendance I was not the only atheist present. I'm certain the grooms were not the only homosexuals there, either. There were no lightning strikes, spontaneous combustion, or earth quakes. No fire-and-brimstone, vindictive type entity could resist such an easy target. Apparently, even in theory, a fundamentalist type deity really doesn't give a shit if same sex marriages occur.

On a more pleasant note, I have to say that the ceremony was one of the most personal intimate ones I have ever witnessed. There was, of course, a considerable amount of religious trappings and rhetoric. However, almost every aspect was catered to the grooms. For example, in place of a second scriptural reading a short story that related to the type of men the grooms are was used. Vows were more like a pledge that focused on their relationship rather than the "marriage as a sacrament" mumbo-jumbo. Basically, it was about their love for each other far more than some bullshit take on why marriage is justified and/or maintained by religion. Despite being officiated by a reverend it was more of a humanist celebration than a religious one. It was beautiful.

Wildmon being Wildmon

I don't care what your political, philosophical, or religious beliefs are, anyone who thinks they can predict in any way what things will be like in 40+ years is a fool. Wildmon has always been an incredibly bigoted ignorant asshole. It did not surprise me in the least to come across his ludicrous fear mongering projections on HuffPo's "American Family Association Warns Christians Of Bigotry, Family Unit Ruin And A Muslim President."

 I found Wildmon's claims/fears about polygamy particularly entertaining since he bases his own "definition" of marriage on the Bible which condones such practices. Somehow, I don't think 2060 will see the end of marriage or families. They may or may not be structured the way they are now (we already have wide variations) but that doesn't say anything about their value. I also fail to see what would be so horrible about a Muslim president in the future. We've survived Christian ones.

Of course, it's possible that Wildmon doesn't really believe any of the crap he's slinging. Fear mongering has always been quite profitable for the Religious Right. Whether he's a money grubbing whore or raving looney, Wildmon is and probably always will be a complete asshole. That's not a prediction so much as it is an assumption based on past experience.

A Happily Married Gay Mormon?

A am a bit skeptical about this self-professed "happy" married gay Mormon. He states quite clearly that he is still attracted to men even though he is married to a woman. I have two major reasons for being rather skeptical of this situation.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could be content let alone outright happy if they were in constant conflict with a major aspect of their personality. The other seemingly contradictory aspect of his married life is his claim to having "an extremely healthy and robust sex life." How? He says has no attraction to women. Sex without attraction sounds rather mechanical and devoid of emotion to me. I certainly would consider that healthy.

I'm not buying it. That is not to say I don't hope that he really is happy. Like Hemant, who's June 12 Friendly Atheist post brought the story to my attention, I would wish him the best. If he has found a way to be happy while in conflict with his own nature, good for him. It is still sad that he finds it necessary to live in such conflict. I suspect he may be confusing contentment with genuine happiness.

Biblical Marriage

Once again the ignorant narrow minded bigoted assholes have gotten their way. Despite North Carolina already having a ban on same sex marriage they found it necessary to push through an amendment that goes far beyond what is already an unethical discriminatory ban. North Carolina will now by law be able to refuse recognition of same-sex and non-married couples in any way. Worst of all, these pinheads are using a specific interpretation of religion to deny citizens what should be basic rights.

In the CNN video clip Baptist Pastor Baity uses a specific Bible passage to justify this hateful amendment. He, of course, is cherry-picking and interpreting. If he had any intellectual honesty or integrity of any sort he would never have done such a foolish thing. There is no single definition, or for that matter an explicit definition, of marriage in the Bible.

I can think of two Biblical couples off the top of my head that contradict Baity's preferred definition. Adam and Eve are not married in the sense we currently think of marriage. Eve is referred to as his wife but their is no reference to any ceremony and certainly no clergy. Read Genesis 2-4 and you could infer that simply having sexual relations made them husband and wife. No direct mention of marriage is made but it is clear that they have sex.

Then there is one of the Bible's greatest heroes, King David. King. David was a polygamist. In quick succession he marries two women even though he was already married(I Samuel 26:39-44). Even three wives was apparently not enough for this horny champion of God. David has an adulterous affair with Bath-Sheba, arranges for her husband to be killed, and then makes her wife number four (II Samuel 11:2-27). Don't forget David is not one of the villains, he's one of the good guys of the "Good Book."

So lets recap. According to the Bible no religious ceremony or even the involvement of any type of clergy is necessary for there to be a marriage. All you have to do is have sex. If you happen to have a penis you do not have to limit yourself to one partner. You can marry as many women as you like and you don't even have to be faithful. Sorry ladies, there are numerous passages that make it clear if you attempt the same type of behavior all you can look forward to is a painful death.

So much for the Bible endorsing one man and one woman.

Then, of course, there is the issue of religion dictating to government what should or should not be public policy. Religion should have no say in civil marriage law just like government has no say in religious doctrine.