Former evangelical leader Ted Haggard broke his silence on a sex scandal that ended his career during a sermon at a small church in Illinois. Haggard said that his sins stemmed from sexual abuse he received in the second grade. Haggard was one of the most powerful evangelical leaders in the country when accusations of gay sex and drug use caused him to step down.
November 12, 2008
October 12, 2008
post-traumatic homo disorder
Correlating homosexuality and childhood abuse or rape furthers antigay rhetoric popularized by conservative and Christian think-tanks. Consider the societal impact of such sentiment. Let me preface these by stating that I understand that you may not subscribe to the following viewpoints; they are nonetheless common among your circle.
To assume that homosexuality results from trauma (such as rape or abuse) contributes to the notion that homosexuality is a classifiable mental disorder. Such condensation toward homosexual lifestyle places yet another obstacle in their pursuit of societal acceptance. Rather than accepting homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, this view emphases the possibility of a “cure” to their handicapped, troubled mental health.
More than emphasizing the need for a cure, this view subjects homosexuals to the limitations that befall other mentally troubled individuals. Someone with post traumatic stress syndrome expressed via homosexuality, cannot, for example, be expected to adequately and/or safely care for an adopted child, lead a boy scout troupe, etc.
The push to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder is ongoing. Since the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities on mental disabilities removed homosexuality from its roster, homophobic institutions have utilized evermore creative schemes to revamp the myth. The attempt to link trauma with homosexuality is a more recent iteration of that effort.
In a more perfect world, one would not perceive relative differences in the normalcy or moral superiority of various sexual orientations. Thus, in a more perfect world, the nature/nurture argument would be irrelevant. Alas, we live far digressed from a perfect world. I have already alluded to this point, but there exists incredible fear in our society that something can “cause” gay.
As President Bush would say (regarding just about anything progressive), “not all the science is in.” Nevertheless, I can not find a single source (other than Christian or “family values” websites) that suggest a correlation between nurture (including trauma and twin studies) and homosexuality. you can undoubtedly fathom the damage that furthering a “such-and-such causes homosexuality” statement does to the civil liberties of homosexuals. When such damaging claims moreover have dubious origin, that is unacceptable.
I am not sure where you heard the myth correlating rape and homosexuality, but I find it sad that you did. I feel this way not just because of the injustices it perpetuates, but because such misinformation spreads so easily, so relentlessly. Regardless of who the messenger was or the information available to them, they have no excuse. As a supposed authority, that person has a moral responsibility to (1) relate information accurately, and (2) understand the societal impact of their message. This duty transcends all titles-- whether they be your peer, teacher, preacher, or parent.
To assume that homosexuality results from trauma (such as rape or abuse) contributes to the notion that homosexuality is a classifiable mental disorder. Such condensation toward homosexual lifestyle places yet another obstacle in their pursuit of societal acceptance. Rather than accepting homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, this view emphases the possibility of a “cure” to their handicapped, troubled mental health.
More than emphasizing the need for a cure, this view subjects homosexuals to the limitations that befall other mentally troubled individuals. Someone with post traumatic stress syndrome expressed via homosexuality, cannot, for example, be expected to adequately and/or safely care for an adopted child, lead a boy scout troupe, etc.
The push to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder is ongoing. Since the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities on mental disabilities removed homosexuality from its roster, homophobic institutions have utilized evermore creative schemes to revamp the myth. The attempt to link trauma with homosexuality is a more recent iteration of that effort.
In a more perfect world, one would not perceive relative differences in the normalcy or moral superiority of various sexual orientations. Thus, in a more perfect world, the nature/nurture argument would be irrelevant. Alas, we live far digressed from a perfect world. I have already alluded to this point, but there exists incredible fear in our society that something can “cause” gay.
As President Bush would say (regarding just about anything progressive), “not all the science is in.” Nevertheless, I can not find a single source (other than Christian or “family values” websites) that suggest a correlation between nurture (including trauma and twin studies) and homosexuality. you can undoubtedly fathom the damage that furthering a “such-and-such causes homosexuality” statement does to the civil liberties of homosexuals. When such damaging claims moreover have dubious origin, that is unacceptable.
I am not sure where you heard the myth correlating rape and homosexuality, but I find it sad that you did. I feel this way not just because of the injustices it perpetuates, but because such misinformation spreads so easily, so relentlessly. Regardless of who the messenger was or the information available to them, they have no excuse. As a supposed authority, that person has a moral responsibility to (1) relate information accurately, and (2) understand the societal impact of their message. This duty transcends all titles-- whether they be your peer, teacher, preacher, or parent.
September 28, 2008
is god necessary for ethics?
A debate at the University of Utah on April 13, 2007, between Mark Hausam and David Keller that asks "Is God necessary for ethics?"
YES: Mark Hausam is an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Salt Lake Community College and an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church. He has an interest in formulating and articulating the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of the Christian religion and exploring how the Christian world-view impacts all of life.
NO: David R. Keller is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Utah Valley State College, where he also serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics and Chair. He is particularly interested in the relationship of religion and public policy in pluralistic societies.
Moderator: Dean Chatterjee teaches philosophy at the University of Utah and is the editor-in-chief of the forthcoming multi-volume Encyclopedia of Global Justice and the series editor of Studies in Global Justice. His publications include, most recently, Democracy in a Global World: Human Rights and Political Participation in the 21st Century (2007).
YES: Mark Hausam is an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Salt Lake Community College and an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church. He has an interest in formulating and articulating the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of the Christian religion and exploring how the Christian world-view impacts all of life.
NO: David R. Keller is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Utah Valley State College, where he also serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics and Chair. He is particularly interested in the relationship of religion and public policy in pluralistic societies.
Moderator: Dean Chatterjee teaches philosophy at the University of Utah and is the editor-in-chief of the forthcoming multi-volume Encyclopedia of Global Justice and the series editor of Studies in Global Justice. His publications include, most recently, Democracy in a Global World: Human Rights and Political Participation in the 21st Century (2007).
September 11, 2008
continuing on moral relativism
To call the Judeo-Christian code of ethics Christianity’s white elephant does not duly articulate its uselessness. Its veneration throughout the Western World, both remarkable and tragic, persists unchecked and without reason. The code employs zero constituents, not for its impossible standards or the flaws of humankind, but for its irrelevance to routine moral dilemma. Let me explain.
Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill-- wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie-- two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”
It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.
Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment-- that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right-- Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.
Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).
While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.
Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill-- wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie-- two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”
It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.
Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment-- that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right-- Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.
Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).
While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.
September 9, 2008
historical credibility of the bible
Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus. [He] is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the early Church and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time and has appeared on NBC'sDateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.
lewis' proof of a greater meaning
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." [Mere Christianity]
This quote exemplifies a critical thinking fallacy commonly expressed by C.S. Lewis: the use of a questionable analogy. True, the absence of phenomenon (lightness, East, sadness, ownership, etc.) should render such phenomenon “without meaning,” for there would exist no reference to them. So does our inclination to ponder the meaning and purpose of life require that a meaning and purpose to life exist, thereby confirming Lewis’ analogy?
No. Lewis failed to recognize that the human story is laden with declarations of meaning and purpose, most pertaining to survival and maintaining some way of life. While often trivial, especially relative to some grandeur purpose and meaning, these small-scale declarations offer humanity the perspective to ask the deeper questions without requiring any answer at all. Expanding Lewis’ analogy, one should expect a creature accustomed to dim light to, at some point in its history, wonder whether there exists something more bright. Christian literature is fraught with questionable analogies.
lewis sets the mood for doubt
"Now Faith…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."
I am quite fond of this quote by C.S. Lewis. It demonstrates his expertise in manipulating language into seemingly logically consistent streams that further his agenda. Notice that he chooses to credit one’s “mood” as the sole source of one’s doubt. It’s an obvious choice; moods are flippant, irrational, and inconstant. To tame one’s variable mood, he calls upon “reason.” Again, it’s an obvious choice; reasons are objective, thorough, and consistent. Of course, Lewis did more than choose his words wisely: he redefined the mechanics of the doubting person. Consider the first sentence of his quote reworded in an arguably more honest form: “faith is the art of holding onto beliefs in spite of reason.” And as you might guess, I completely agree with this latter statement.
You might accuse that I have committed the same fallacy as Lewis; namely, that I have simply manipulated language into seemingly consistent streams in order to further my agenda. I accept the burden of arguing otherwise.
C.S Lewis wrote Mere Christianity more than 50 years ago-- predating the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang Theory, evolution, and other scientific jabs at religious institutions. Perhaps back in 1952 (at least more than today) one could “reason” the existence of God. But these days, in an era where science pulls the curtain on even the most complex, beautiful, and curious phenomenon, it is impossible to find a “proof” of God in the natural word. Therefore, rather than defining faith as sticking to one’s “reasons” as C.S. Lewis asserts, I define faith as sticking to one’s “beliefs.” Fair enough?
Now consider the roots of doubt. Doubt-- in Christianity or any other belief— surfaces for a variety of reasons. Possibly the least common of which is a simple mood swing. Doubt more often arises because one has difficulty reconciling the claims of Christianity with some conflicting, but seemingly irrefutable, piece of evidence. Lewis suggested that we close our minds to such evidence for the sake of soundness. Although perhaps not his intention, Lewis is encouraging a most asinine and dangerous approach to belief: blind observance. I feel that recasting and legitimizing the antagonist in Lewis’ story as honest and pensive “reason” rather than “changing moods” better reflects one’s struggle with faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)