It’s very likely that you have heard someone, usually a person not very enlightened who thinks he/she can rationalize the issue in something that simple, say that atheism is a religion. Sometimes it’s hard to deal with it, given the obvious bullshit that has just been spewed at us, considering that “atheism”, meaning “belief in no god” would be equaled to a religion.
Something that comes to the mind of the non-believer who has heard that is the fact that believers usually say it with an intent to insult, as if having a religion were something bad. Well, don’t take it like that; what believers are doing is calling us “hypocrites” for criticizing their belief. Of course, the believer who does that, can’t understand that atheism by definition cannot be a religion.
Many things have been said about this, just like the example from the title. The Friendly Atheist even dedicated a post to the issue, but I can’t find. What he did is link to a video from that Youtube Demigoddes, ZOMGitsCriss. Here, see it for yourself.
Now, see it once again, because she is so hot you couldn’t pay attention to what really she said.
Ok. Cristina (her real name, if you didn’t know) answers to that religious guy who “can’t be talked away” from the idea that atheism is a religion. Cristina refutes each and everyone of his points.
What I want to do is something a little different. Every religion has certain elements that are common to every set of belief to qualify as such. I wrote about these “dimensions” earlier, and have been thinking about comparing them to atheism to see if it qualifies. So, let’s do it:
1. Ritual: Every religion has a ritual that must be followed. There 4 kinds of rituals, which are daily, weekly or monthly, yearly, and those of once in a lifetime. Daily are prayer or meditation, weekly are the mass or sabbath, yearly are Ramadan and Yom Kippur and once i na lifetime, marriage or visitation to Mecca.
Don't laugh! They are praying!
What about atheism? Does atheism has a ritual that must be followed? Deny God, or read atheist blogs once a day? Go to the natural museum every month? Go to awesome atheist conventions every year? Meet Richard Dawkins? Of course not. All that stuff, while cool, is just purely optional. The average non-believer will seldom show his unbelief unless asked or provoked. So, no, atheism has no rituals. Next!
2. Myth: Ok, wait, myth does not mean a “lie”, it means more like a “story”, or account of events, that might be true or false, and upon which religion is based. This story is sacred for people and usually tries to answer difficult questions like “where do we come from”, “where are we going to” and finally, the story of our group. If you are thinking about the Adam and Eve myth, you are correct. The early inhabitants of my country, Peru, would explain their existence by the Apu Kon Tiki Wiracocha myth
This is Viracocha. He came out from the Titicaca Lake, created everything (but don't ask how the lake was already there, it's disrespectful) and then made mankind by breathing into stones. He didn't like, destroyed them with a flood and created new ones. Then went away. Nice story, isn't it?
So, do atheists have a story, that they are unsure is real or not, that is sacred, and that answers those questions? Obviously, not. No, evolution does not qualify. It is not sacred, it is not millennial and certainly is not telling us anything absolute. What we know about evolution is knowledge we have gained through studies by scientist, that have been put to trial and debunked or accepted. Might not sound perfect, but it’s much accurate than “this is a story that we all consider sacred”. So, no, atheists don’t have myths. Next!
3. Doctrine: This one is about the core beliefs of the religion. Has a lot to do with that word believers like to use a lot: Truth. Truth, here, truth there, Jesus is the truth, They hate me for saying the truth. Don’t you want to punch them in the face when they do it? I know, but we are civilized people who put over our shoulders the task of showing that “water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen” is “truth” while “God created everything” is not.
So, the doctrine can be separated in three parts. Pay attention: - Theology, “Who gives the truth”: In many cases, God, a supernatural being. Sometimes it can also be a force, especially when talking about eastern religions. - Cosmology, “Where to find the truth”: Well, where do you think? In the fucking bible, where else? But you don’t get it just by reading, you also have to pray and “transcend”, because the bible is different from other books. - Soteriology: ”How to do what is truth”. Christianity, Islam and Judaism tell people they cannot help themselves, but need of God. So once they know how to do it, they must do it. On the other hand, Buddhists will say that people need to find they inner answer.
The Bible is the Truth because it is the word of God. We know it's the word of God because the Bible says it so; and we believe that because the Bible is the Truth.
Now, what about atheists? First of all, non-believers usually talk about “fact”, not “truth”, because we are not arrogant enough to say we know it all (well, we usually know more). Who gives the truth? No God, no “force”, no nothing. No one. There is just no “truth”, just what we find after investigating our surroundings. Where is the truth? The truth is out there and anyone, with enough money, time and studies can find it, if we are talking about scientific facts. And how do we do it? Well, by not doing what believers do. That’s what the “a” in “atheist” is for. Next!
4. Ethics: This one has to do with lifestyle, and how to be a good person or a bad person. Most of these “rules” will control money, sex and killing; commands (for example, the orthodox jews have more than 600 commands) and relationships with others. In other words, rules for almost everything
Those 2 commandments contain much more ethic than anything I've read from Christianity
Atheists and non believers tend to apply the “golden rule” as a way of knowing how to be a good or bad person. Also, scientific knowledge is applicable. Why support the gays in marrying? Because scientists say there is nothing wrong. To deny them such right is, well, to be an intolerant dick. Our "rules" tend to change according to the times in which we live. The society's ethics, as a whole, do that same thing. However, many religious people tend to stick to their outdated rules, even after facing the facts that prove those rules to be impractical, discriminatory and plain evil
5. Social life: Religion also have rules on how to behave with others inside or outside of the religion. They ask, what should be done with outsiders? Kill the infidels? Convert the unbelievers? Not give a shit about their behavior? Those kind of questions. It also addresses what to do with those inside. Who are the special people? The priests? The imams? What role do women have? Should we respect old people?
Atheists don’t have those kind of rules to treat different those who are or not unbelievers. We just treat everyone like an equal, and if not, well, it’s not like there is a written rule to do so. We tend to respect scientists, but not because they are something especial, but because they know something more than us and can show us what they know. Anyone can gain that knowledge, which is nothing especial. That is why we tend to cite them so often. They are not especial people chosen by someone, or with some kind of authority (other than scholar authority) over us. It's thanks to them that we understand reality. If we wanted to understand, let's say, laws, then we get a lawyer. Build a house? An engineer. Next!
6. Experience: It’s about what goes inside the person and what their feelings are. Religions have two kind of moments related to the sacred: “Mysticals” in which they feel great unity with god; and “Numinous” in which they fear it and understand how small they are.
In the US there is a prevalence for numinousity, understanding how little we are and how we can do more and never be content with what we have.
Then there is the “change” experience, which is the intensity of change: There are multiple births, in the idea that people can be “born again” and leave their life behind in order to start a new one. On the other hand, we have “once born”, in which a person is the same person as when he/she was born, and changes little by little
Non believers in general don’t have a relationship with the sacred, given that there is nothing sacred. We do have a relationship with our peers, in which we can have “mystical moments”, like when you kiss the girl you like for the first time, or when you see a friend you haven’t seen in years. Our moments in which we feel little are usually related to the circumstances, like when gaining a new job position and knowing that there is so much ahead. Nothing of that has anything to do with the sacred.
Finally, our change can be either gradual or sudden. There is no rule in this and it is usually affected by the circumstances. Like most of what we non-believers experience.
So, as you can see, atheism has no one of these “dimensions”. We do have situations in which we might behave in one way or another, the difference is that there is nothing written about it. We can do one or the other, we can behave in one way or another and we won’t be breaking any supposed rule.
We are free, we think free, we have no bounds based on the divine.
In other words, and more academically talking, atheism is not a religion.
I just noticed I hadn't talked much about creationism except for a few mentions in which it wasn't the central topic. My apologies. That is about to change.
Yes, it's a nice painting. No, it's not historically accurate
The following is a paper on creationism I wrote some weeks ago for a class. In the English-speaking world (most of it protestant) it's a big issue and it's always useful to know about it.
Yes, I know that the idea that everything was created as it is 6000 years ago is total non-sense. But say that and you will very likely be considered an intolerant by the idiotic creationist who prefers to believe his/her favorite fairy tale. Well, read this carefully and you'll have the basic "weapons" to demonstrate how retarded that is. Hope you enjoy it.
----
On Creationism
It’s impossible to deny the bible’s status as a holy text, and the influence it has over the lives of millions on the planet. What isn’t very hard to do is to deny its historical value, especially regarding its first books, more exactly, the Genesis. However, this has only been done in a recent era, considering the time Christianity and other Abrahamic religions have had. Today we can assert with certain accuracy the Earth’s age in billions of years. However, before scientific advances made that possible, the idea that the world was created in seven days, as is narrated in the Genesis was the official view. This is what we know as Creationism, an idea still widely spread across the United States and other parts of the world.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." In other words, the writings we find in the Genesis (which can be found in both the Bible and the Torah) are myths that will explain the beginning of the world, the human race and the religions that take this view.
Creationism can be divided in two branches, all of them having in common the idea that a supernatural being, God, has intervened in the creation of living beings. These movements are (Scott, 66):
1. Young Earth Creationism: It postulates that the Earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old, a number based in the Usher Chronology, a time-dating technique made by the 17th century Anglican Archbishop of Armagh James Usher, which consisted in adding up the biblical patriarchs ages, TheStar.com reports. Young Earth Creationism rejects evolution and asserts that the Flood of Noah has had great influence on Earth’s geology.
2. Old Earth Creationism: Contrary to Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism accepts the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old. However, it adds the idea of a supernatural being getting involved by denying evolution on different degrees. Old Earth Creationism can be divided in four positions:
2.1 Gap Creationism: It claims that there was a big “gap” between the verses 1 and 2 of the Genesis, meaning that there was a first creation which was destroyed, and then another one that is accounted for in the second verse of the Genesis. Gap creationism was born in the 19th century as a way to accommodate Christianity to the new scientific discoveries.
2.2 Day Age Creationism: Another attempt to adapt the Bible with scientific discoveries, it claims that the days described in the Genesis are actually long periods of time. Therefore, while the Earth still is billions of years, a supernatural being interferes in it and creates living beings. 2.3 Progressive creationism: It accepts scientific findings, such as the Earth's age and the fauna and flora that lived in different eras. However, it claims that such plants and animals were created by God, first simple life forms, and then more complex ones.
2.4 Evolutionary creationism: It accepts the scientific Earth’s age and theory of evolution; however, it claims that evolution was actually directed by a supernatural being.
It is important to note that when talking about a “supernatural being” we are referring not to an unknown being, but to the God of Christianity. Given that creationism bases are found in the Genesis and this is part of the sacred texts, which are inspired by God and therefore, are the truth, they are part of a doctrine that must be followed in order to find salvation.
While creationism and the general idea that the world we know came to be as a result of a superior being’s action have declined since science made possible carbon dating, fossil registry and other evidence, the movement is far from disappearing. Creationism has found its way in the minds of many in churches and even schools under the label of Intelligent Design.
According to the Center for Science and Culture, a creationist think tank, intelligent design claims that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” In other words, while creationism said that living beings came into existence by the works of God, Intelligent Design says that living beings’ existence can only be explained by the works of a designer. While Creationism did base its claims in holy texts, Intelligent Design argues from a scientific point of view that tries to explain the complexity of living beings in order to arrive to the conclusion of a creator.
Obviously, this creator is no other than the same Christian God that creationism used to be based on, as we can see in the Intelligent Design movement statement of faith
Intelligent design is backed up by a number of scholars, or “creation scientists” who claim hold degrees in different areas. However, the National Center for Science Education compiles the scientific community’s statements in which it is made clear that intelligent design is not considered a science. Moreover, the Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a pseudoscience. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 25)
According to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Intelligent Design proponents posit that the universe, or at least, components of it, has been designed by an “intelligence.” They also claim that they can empirically distinguish intelligent design from design produced through natural processes, which is done through the application of two complementary ideas, Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information (Scott, 123).
1. Irreducible complexity: In his book “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” biochemist and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe explains Irreducible Complexity by saying that “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Behe, 39) However, Dr. Eugenie Scott explains that “A search of scientific databases, such as PubMed or SciSearch, reveals that scholars have not applied the concept of irreducible complexity or the design inference in researching scientific problems. ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause. Most scientists would reply that unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.”(Scott, 123) In other words, the argument of Irreducible Complexity just an argument from ignorance.
2. Complex Specified Information: It’s an argument proposed by mathematician William Dembski. In his paper “Redesigning Science” he says that "intelligent causation is an irreducible feature of the bio-physical universe, and furthermore that intelligent causation is empirically detectable.” However, Dr, Eugenie Scott explains that such argument “depends on the extent of scientific knowledge of the time, failing to be a reliable predictor of design by intelligence”(Scott, 128)
The disdain the scientific community has for Intelligent Design has not stopped its proponents from pushing its teaching in classrooms as a valid scientific point of view and the fact that many Americans still believe the Earth was created according to the biblical account. According to a Gallup poll made in 2008, 44% of Americans believe that God created human beings in its present form; 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution; and 14% believe that God had no part in the process. In other words, the American people reject in great number a widely agreed scientific position, preferring to cling to their beliefs.
According to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist from Harvard University, “the tendency to accept evolutionary theory is, of course, not just judged on the merits of evolutionary theory, it's judged because it is as seen as being in opposition to religious belief. And religious belief carries with it not just the belief itself in a particular set of facts and ideas, but all of the huge social and political associations. So, in the United States, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, or if you do believe in evolutionary theory, then it means it's harder for you to commit yourself to a religious group that has huge significance. And so I think the answer to why it is that evolutionary theory is difficult for people in the states to believe is that religious systems are so incredibly prevalent.” In other words, Wrangham argues that the significance of creationism goes beyond the dimensions of myth and doctrine, to a social that involves commitment to one’s group. A person’s social life is another variable that has to be taken into account when deciding to accept or reject creationism as a valid explanation to our origins. This might be a factor in the number of attempts to teach intelligent design as a valid science and how these disputes have been taken to court.
The first account of evolution and creationism confronting each other in a court is the Scopes Trial. In 1925 Tennessee passed the “Butler Act”, which made it unlawful to deny the creation of man as written in the Bible. High School science teacher John Scopes was accused of teaching evolution and the trial was set. In the end, Scopes lost the case and belief in creationism grew. (Scott, 99-103)
By the 60’s few states still had anti-evolution laws. One of them was Arkansas, which saw its In 1965 Susan Epperson argued that the Arkansas antievolution law was unconstitutional because it violated her right to free speech. The trial came out favorable to Epperson, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in 1967. A year later the US Supreme Court deemed the anti-evolution law unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.(Scott, 111)
This aftermath didn’t mean that creationism was taken out of classrooms. In 1981 Arkansas passed a bill that required evolution and creationism to have equal time being taught in schools. According to the Act 590, “to present only evolution in the schools would create a hostile climate for religious students, undermining their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values.” The law was challenged in the McLean vs Arkansas trial, in which the Arkansas ACLU received argued that because creation science was inherently a religious idea, its advocacy would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Act 590 was declared unconstitutional. (Scott, 114 - 115)
A similar law was passed in Louisiana that sought to give equal time to the teaching of evolution and creationism. However, the law was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1987. In 2005 a new case regarding creationism (this time presented as Intelligent Design) was brought to the courts in the “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District”. In this case eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, sued the school for reading aloud a statement that argued that since the theory of evolution was just a “theory” it was not a fact, and that Intelligent Design was “an explanation of the origin of life”. After 21 days in trial, it was ruled that “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
It’s important to notice that the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District based its claims in the “errors” evolutionary theory has, and makes a case trying to explain them by the interference of a supernatural being. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains this creationist methodology as “to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. […] If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Creationism and/or Intelligent Design have not been able to withstand the trials in which it has been put against science and have deemed them as a religious-based position. In a country whose constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” creationism has no place in schools being taught as legitimate science. While there is still a strong support for creationism, it is possible to view the future in a bright light and that science will take its right place in classrooms. As Stephen Hawking said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Sources: "Creation scientists and other biographies of interest." Answers in Genesis. 22 Jul. 2010. .
"CSC - Top Questions." Center for Science and Culture. 22 Jul. 2010. .
"Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Disctrict." National Center for Science Education. 20 Dec. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010. .
"Statements from Scientific Organizations." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 22 Jul. 2010. .
"The AiG statement of faith." Answers in Genesis. 29 Apr. 2009. 22 Jul. 2010. .
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, 1998.
Borenstein, Jason. "Scientific Experts and the Courts." Professional Ethics Report XIV (2001): 7-8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 22 Jul. 2010.
Dawkins, Richard "Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant." The Times 21 May. 2005. 22 Jul. 2010 .
Popplewell, Brett "In the beginning, not too many years ago ...." The Star 27 Oct. 2007. 22 Jul. 2010 .
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. National Academy of Sciences, 1999.
Scott, Eugenie C. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists." NCSE - National Center for Science Education. 12 Aug. 2002. 22 Jul. 2010. .
Scott, Eugenie. Evolution vs. Creationism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.
Wrangham, Richard . "Why Many Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution." Big Think. 2 Apr. 2010. 22 Jul. 2010. .
----
If you reached this point, congratulations, it was a long paper. If you want something lighter and funnier, you can check these videos, from The Thinking Atheist, and subtitled in Spanish by the team of Traducciones Herejes
What happened with "update #2" well, I didn't write the English version, just the Spanish. If I had, it would have said that there was a blog dedicated to the iPhone that had around 3000 votes. Well, that blog is not anymore in the race.
It doesn't matter really much, since, as long as we are in the three first places, we go to the finals. So, that blog's absence does not mean we automatically win. It just means that we will go to the finals with the most votes.
After that, the judges will choose the winner in the category. If we win, I think it will be a great success regarding the attention the non-believers receive, especially in Perú, where it's not that common that someone stands up to religious authorities and their dogmas.
And if we don't win? Well, we fought well. Maybe this is not what the judges were looking for. But we were there, and showed that it's not necessary to have faith ina higher being to achieve something. I had faith in all of you who gave a vote, I had faith in the community of non-believers that desire to live in a world that appreciates critical thinking.
Anyway thank you all for your votes. The contest will finish in less than a week. You can vote by clicking in THIS LINK. It will take you to a page in which you have put your email address. Then click on the button that says "envienme..." After that, got to your inbox and open the email from "20blogs". There, just click in the confirmation link. Otherwise, the vote will not count.
Si recuerdan mi post anterior, verán que había un blog sobre el iPhone que tenía más votos que el resto de blogs juntos. No sé si los obtuvo de una forma justa o no. La cosa es que ese blog ya no está en la carrera.
Significa eso que ganamos automáticamente? No. Significa que tenemos más votos que nadie en la categoría y que de todas maneras pasamos a las finales.
¿Y de ahí?
Los jueces elegirán al ganador de entre los tres que tengan más votos. Si ganamos, será un hecho bastante relevante, creo yo, para lo que significan los blogs en el Perú, en donde difícilmente se ve a alguien pararle los machos a la iglesia y a los dogmas religiosos.
¿Y si no ganamos? Pues, ni modo, quizás no es lo que los jueces buscaban. Pero estuvimos allí, y demostramos que no es necesario tener fe en un ser superior, sino que la fe en la comunidad de aquellos que valoramos el pensamiento crítico nos llevó hasta las finales en este concurso.
Gracias a todos por sus votos. El concurso acaba en menos de una semana. Para votar, hagan click en ESTE LINK, dejen su correo electrónico, aprieten el botón, revisen su inbox y confirmen el voto. Gracias a todos.
Como ya muchos deben saber, este blog está participando en el concurso de 20 blogs peruanos. Sí, ese botón amarillo que ven al costado es por eso.
Antes que nada, quiero agradecer a todos los que de una forma u otra pusieron su grano de arena por este blog. Son muchos, y si intento mencionarlos, me corro el riesgo de olvidarme de alguno. Si bien no hacerlo me apena, me agrada bastante el que una comunidad así de grande exista entre los no creyentes.
En fin. Al grano. ¿Como vamos en el concurso?
Vamos en segundo lugar:
Resaltados están los 3 primeros lugares. En primer lugar y con casi 3000 votos está un blog dedicado al iPhone. Si bien lo primero que se me ocurrió cuando vi sus votos subir tan rápidamente fue "WTF!", creo que es en cierto modo lógico que algo como el iPhone le de a un blog dedicado a este tanta afluencia. Ya algunos me han dicho que se puede tratar de fraude. Tal vez. Pero como dije, cabe la posibilidad de que sean votos legítimos por fans del iPhone (quienes no son pocos) y si es así, es algo respetable.
En segundo lugar y con casi 400 votos, vamos nosotros. Nosotros, porque no solo es Diego, El Mapache, sino todos los que creen que las críticas a los dogmas religiosos son necesarias para una sociedad que se dirija hacia un mejor futuro. Somos ustedes y yo. Somos todos.
Para quienes se preocupan de que "vamos a perder", no es tanto así. Como podrán leer en las bases del concurso, el jurado selecciona a los 3 blogs con más votaciones y de entre ellos elijen al ganador. Este blog definitivamente entra en ese rubro. Y luego de eso, ya queda a decisión del jurado. Solo nos queda... ¿rezar? ja, no. Pero sí esperar que el jurado encuentre en este blog lo que está buscando. Este blog pertenece a un peruano que emigró buscando un futuro mejor, que desde fuera dirige una mirada al mundo con ansias de hacerlo mejor, pero que definitiamente no olvida de dónde vino. "El mundo es mi patria, y hacer el bien es mi religión".
Para acabar, les recuerdo que para votar solo deben hacer click en ESTE link. Se les pedirá su correo electrónico. Una vez que hagan click en el botón de "enviéneme un correo electrónico", revisen su inbox, abran el mail de "20blogs" y den click al link que les envían para confirmar su voto. Si no, el voto no contará.
Hoy un juez de San Francisco declaró como inconstitucional la Proposición 8, la cual básicamente prohibe a los homosexuales el casarse. Así que no exactamente "California", entendiendo "la gente de California", pero algo es algo.
Un juzgado federal de Estados Unidos ha declarado hoy ilegal la Proposición Ocho, que fue aprobada en referéndum hace dos años e ilegalizó el matrimonio homosexual en California. De este modo, abre el camino a la legalización, de nuevo, de las uniones entre personas del mismo sexo en ese Estado, donde ya se casaron unas 18.000 parejas en los meses en los que fue legal en 2008.
De igual forma, hace unas semanas, Argentina celebraba la aprobación del matrimonio homosexual
En una ceremonia cargada de emociones, la presidenta argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner promulgó este miércoles la llamada ley del matrimonio gay, que convierte a Argentina en el primer país de América Latina que permite el casamiento entre personas del mismo sexo. "Hoy somos una sociedad un poco mas igualitaria que la semana pasada", celebró la jefa de estado, ante un auditorio colmado de muchos de los representantes de la comunidad homosexual y diversos grupos civiles y políticos que apoyaron la medida, y que recibieron a la mandataria al coro de "¡igualdad, igualdad, igualdad!".
Aparte de la alegría de que ambos lugares ahora reconozcan la igualdad de sus ciudadanos homosexuales con respecto a los héteros, me gustaría resaltar esta parte sobre la decisión del juez Californiano.
El juez estimó que un referéndum no puede denegar a los gays y lesbianas el derecho a casarse. "No existe base racional para el hecho de que la Proposición Ocho pueda apartar a un grupo de mujeres y hombres gays denegándoles licencias de matrimonio", escribió el juez Vaughn Walker en su sentencia. "De hecho, hay evidencias de que la Proposición Ocho establecería en la constitución de California que las parejas de sexos opuestos son superiores a las del mismo sexo".
No sé cuantas veces he tenido que explicar esto, pero de verdad, la única base para oponerse a que los homosexuales tengan los mismo derechos que la mayoría de la gente es la intolerancia y el odio, muchas veces basados en creencias religiosas.
¿Qué, creyeron que la cosa no iba por ahí? Considerando el rol que jugó la iglesia mormona en California, y la iglesia católica en Argentina, es imposible negar que las creencias religiosas influyen en el comportamiento de los fieles a la hora de apoyar o negar derechos para el resto.
Y aquí hay que puntualizar que muchos liberales muy políticamente correctos se cuidan mucho de no mencionar las creencias religiosas, bajo el miedo de ser catalogados como intolerantes, a pesar de lo que no se tolera es la intolerancia institucionalizada, oleada y sacramentada. Con razó pues, muchos los consideran cobardes.
V. By Denying Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry, the State Reinforces and Perpetuates the Stigma Historically Associated with Homosexuality.
As explained in Section III.A above, same-sex committed relationships do not differ from heterosexual committed relationships in their essential emotional qualities and their capacity for long-term commitment. As explained in Section IV.B above, they also do not differ in the context they provide for rearing healthy and well-adjusted children. The State’s concurrence with these conclusions is evidenced in its domestic partnership and second-parent adoption statutes. Thus, amici conclude that the reason for according same-sex relationships a different legal status than heterosexual relationships is ultimately the fact that the relationship is homosexual rather than heterosexual. This differentiation based on sexual orientation is an expression of stigma.
Lo cual se traduce como
V. Al negarle a las parejas del mismo sexo el derecho al matrimonio, el estado refuerza y perpetú el estigma historicamente asociado a la homosexualidad
Tal como se explicó en la sección III.A más arriba, los compromisos del mismo sexo no difieren de los compromisos heterosexuales en sus cualidades emocionales esenciales y en su capacidad de comprometerse por largo tiempo. Tal como se explicó en la sección IV.B más arriba, tampoco difieren en el contexto de proveer un ambiente saludable y bien ajustado para los hijos. La concurrencia del estado en estas exclusiones es evidenciada en sus estatutos sobre convivencia doméstica y adopción por parte de un segundo progenitor. Por lo tanto, amici concluye que la razón por la que las relaciones del mismo sexo tengan un estatus legal distinto a las relaciones heterosexuales es en definitiva por el hecho de que se trata de una relación homosexual en lugar de heterosexual. Esta diferenciación hecha en base a la orientación sexual es una expresión de estigma.
Y concluyendo que
There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.
No existe base científica para distinguir entre parejas del mismo sexo y parejas heterosexuales con respecto a sus derechos legales, obligaciones, beneficios y responsabilidades conferidas por el matrimonio civil.
En otras palabras, los científicos afirman que no hay razón para negarle a los gays el casarse. Afirmación que el juez californiano parece tomar en cuenta para dar su veredicto. Tal vez en Argentina haya pasado algo similar. Tal vez no. Lo que sí es afirmable es que la iglesia católica argentina, sin más conocimiento que sus jurásicas creencias respecto a la homosexualidad, se opuso al matrimonio gay.
Gobierno argentino atropella derecho natural con "matrimonio" homosexual El Arzobispo Emérito de Resistencia, Mons. Carmelo Giaquinta, señaló en su reflexión del fin de semana que el gobierno de Argentina pese a haber hecho de la "defensa de sus derechos humanos su bandera", no ha sido capaz de "percibir que la ley de matrimonio civil entre personas homosexuales atropella inútilmente" el derecho natural.
Aparentemente, para el arzobispo, los derechos de los homosexuales no entran en lo que es derechos humanos. Pero bueno ¿quién dijo que se necesitaba inteligencia para ser obispo?
En el Perú tenemos a alguien similar, a quien tampoco le interesan mucho los derechos humanos. El cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani:
El cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani instó a los peruanos no imitar a los argentinos en la aprobación del matrimonio homosexual , pues consideró que esa unión debe ser natural, entre un hombre y una mujer.
“Argentina tiene un mal equipo de fútbol y un muy mal entrenador como (Diego) Maradona. Yo creo que no hay que imitar esas partes de Argentina, creo yo que el matrimonio es una institución natural de hombre y mujer complementarios para toda la vida”, comentó.
Asimismo, sostuvo que hay asuntos más importantes en el país y alertó que “dejarnos arrastrar por un mundo que hoy no piensa es muy peligroso”.
No sé qué tiene que ver el equipo de futbol argentino en el asunto. Aparentemente, para el cardenal, si Argentina tiene un mal equipo de futbol y no debemos imitar eso, tampoco debemos imitar el que se promulguen leyes en pro de la igualdad de derechos. Bien jalada de los pelos la lógica del cardenal. Pero bueno, ¿quién dijo que para ser cardenal se necesitaba lógica?
A mí me gustaría ver que en Perú se apruebe esta medida. Lo más seguro es que la saque algún congresista con miras a ganar notoriedad, pero creo que si eso va a beneficiar a un sector de la población que es vista por encima del hombro ¿por qué no? Al menos será algo bueno que se hizo por alguien.
La semilla está sembrada. Ya varios peruanos, al menos limeños, no ven a los gays tan mal como lo podrían haber hecho hace 10 o 20 años. Por supuesto no faltan los viejitos que no salen de su ignorancia e intolerancia. Afortunadamente estos morirán dentro de unos años. Ojalá, de causas naturales y sin haber sufrido la discriminación hacia los adultos mayores.
¿Y los conservaduros? Bueno, esperemos que a medida de que haya más educación y los medios pongan al alcance del público estudios serios sobre la naturaleza de la homosexualidad, más gente deje sus dogmas jurásicos y empiecen a pensar por sí mismos y ver lo que la ciencia tiene que ofrecer.
Es por esto que apoyo los movimientos ateos. Porque tiene a la ciencia como a su mejor arma y gracias a esta podemos entendernos mejor a nosotros mismos y de esa forma hacer de este un mejor lugar para vivir. Las religiones difícilmente hacen eso.
Y finalmente, la mejor cristiana de USA nos da una charla sobre lo que verdaderamente es el matrimonio bíblico:
Well, not exactly. It's not "California" meaning "the people of California" but actually a judge declaring that Proposition 8, which prohibited gays of getting married, unconstitutional
In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker says the ban on same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The decision is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
To most rational people, it's pretty obvious that Proposition 8 and any law that takes away rights from a certain group of people violates equal protection and due process. In fact, it violates equality, a value that has had to be fought and defended through the years, whether we are talking about natives, blacks, latinos or Japaneses.
Walker cited extensive trial evidence to support his finding that there was not even a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. Higher courts defer to trial judges on issues of fact, but still could determine that Walker was wrong on the law.
Here I want to emphasize the "rational basis" part. Exactly, there is nothing rational about denying gays (or any other human groups) the same rights others enjoy. The only basis under such position is takes is irrational. And, yes, I'm talking in great part about religion.
What? you thought this had nothing to do with religion? Even with the Mormons backing up Prop 8 from the beginning? Even with the religious right always portraying gays, in the best of cases, as sick people, and in the worst, as demon possessed? Come on, someone needs to point this out. Most politically-correct liberals will try to avoid touch the religion string, fearing being called "intolerant of others beliefs". Well, that's one reason so many people regard liberals as pussies.
Well, going back to the issue. Since there is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage, there should be rational basis to approve, right? Well, according to the American Psychological Association:
There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.
This is the conclusion of a document used in courts and issued by the APA. If you want, you can read the whole document, which is written in an English easy enough for the average person to understand. Of course, bigotry and intolerance makes it more difficult to understand these documents more than any flaw in the educational system or a bad English an immigrant could have.
Be warned, what you will read is something you will likely hear from most liberals. Conservatives (I mean, social conservatives, a.k.a. Christian Right) will dismiss that saying that it's just liberals talking. Even if it's coming from the most prestigious association of psychologists, this is, scientists who have made all the research possible on the issue before making a statement.
But, when has it been a problem for conservatives to dismiss scientific knowledge when it goes against their own faith-based bigotry?
Now, there is another issue that bigo... I mean, Prop 8 supporters are making the case about. Prop 8 was put in the ballot some time ago, meaning that the people could choose whether to approve it or not. By declaring it unconstitutional, the judge is dismissing the 7 million votes that were in favor of Prop 8.
That seems to be a big problem in the US, the idea that "Teh govament" is taking away "the people's rights", in this casse, by forsaking the opinion of a big chunk of the Californian population.
The problem is that here we have the opinion of a lot of people against what scientists say is normal. You see the difference? Those who oppose gay marriage are either ignorant about what science says about it, or even knowing it, they cling to their bigotry, again, in many cases supported by religious ideas. In other words, we either have ignorant or stupid people voting against it.
I praise the fact that a judge had the bravery to oppose them and say that "according to the evidence, THIS is right and this is what should be done".
That's why I support atheism. Because it uses science as its main weapon, and thanks to scientific advancement we can actually know about ourselves, about humanity and then take the steps necessary to make this a better world.
Here a short video from CNN:
So, yeah, as you heard, this is going to be appealed. The war for equality is not over. Finalmente, y por si queda alguien que quiera argumentar que la homosexualidad es inmoral según la biblia, pues este video explica lo que realmente es "moral" según la biblia.
Don't laugh! They are praying!
This is Viracocha. He came out from the Titicaca Lake, created everything (but don't ask how the lake was already there, it's disrespectful) and then made mankind by breathing into stones. He didn't like, destroyed them with a flood and created new ones. Then went away. Nice story, isn't it?
