The Proletariat Congress

Or at least that’s what Mike Huckabee, a Republican candidate, running for the presidential nomination would have you think. If he had his way, he’d have everyone thinking that civilization would somehow keel over if gay marriage existed, never mind that it does and that there are a few nations in the world where it actually does exist and surprisingly, chaos and anarchy hasn’t broken out here. Society hasn’t fallen to shambles.

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square.

You mean, kind of like forcing people from different cultures to accept your definition of ‘family’, sort of like that? This is one case where the attempt to hide the contempt for the rights for a group is obvious. Huckabee is pandering to the religious right and their irrational fear that homosexuals will some how destroy society and the sanctity of marriage by getting married themselves.

If anything has supposedly upset the sanctity of marriage, it would have been the introduction of ‘divorce’ during the reign of King Henry VIII when the Vatican refused to annul his marriage. Of course, it wasn’t such a big deal then because people had greater things to worry about, such as just… surviving.

The 20th century saw the surge in the rate of divorce. This is tied closely to women’s suffrage and the feminist movement, that gave them equal rights, as well as the right to be equal to men. This was a good thing, but it did open up the way for people to get divorced because the woman wasn’t forced to rely on the man who could determine if she was able to leave. She was no longer forced into subservience.

Homosexuals have not done anything to ‘violate’ the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals are very capable of doing it on their own and are very professional about it. In fact, they can be so good at it, that they may marry and divorce multiple times, (ie: Rudy Guiliani, another Republican candidate). Heterosexuals have proven they are very able in their destruction of the sacred institution known in some circles as “Holy Matrimony”. Even more, sans divorce, heterosexuals are more than able on their own to destroy it by engaging in extra-marital affairs with others, regardless of gender.

Of course, any good conservative Christian will ignore this because well, it doesn’t count because it’s not homosexuals trying to invade the realm of marriage and pollute the minds of young children, letting them know that homosexuality is not some fearsome boogeyman that will leap out from under your bed at night and consume you whole.

For the same group, the title of ‘civil union’ is not acceptable either…

Because it really is a precursor toward marriage. Once the government says this relationship is in essence similar to or equal to a marriage—we’re not going to call it that, but that’s what it is—and you grant it the same basic rights as marriage, then you’ve effectively done it.

Maybe because it is the same thing. If it smells like dung, it looks like dung then it’s probably, dung. You can call it whatever you want and it’ll still be the same in the end. But is that really a reason why it can’t be granted? In fact, can’t ‘civil union’ be applied to heterosexual couples? Especially to those who loath the idea of marriage in front of the clergy? Or for those who just don’t believe in all that meaningless ritualistic hocus-pocus?

Along the same vein, but moving on, I can think of at least one nation where there is homosexual marriage and society hasn’t fallen apart, in fact, there were two notable marriages that occurred under the new law and were publicised when they did happen. I speak of course of Canada. Same sex marriage is legal here and two notable public figures who have on two different occasions tied the same sex knot are Scott Brison and Greg Smitherman.

Other nations that have legalised gay marriage, only to see society tick along as if nothing happened were: Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa and the strongly Catholic nation of Spain. Plenty more have legalised civil unions, the first step toward legalising marriage for homosexuals. These nations include: Andorra, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

It should be noted that of the nations listed where civil unions are legal, there are a few that are paving the way for same sex marriage, but the issue is being debated at the moment. France, UK, Portugal, Finland and New Zealand are paving the way for the final phase in their nations, yet it has not rained fire and brimstone on those nations for their decision to make that leap forward.

Yet there are still candidates in the US that seem to think that being gay is some how a bad thing; that gay marriage will cause civilization to implode on itself, that we will incur “God’s” wrath for engaging in such sin; as though Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and other “holy” books are actually true despite being riddled with falsehoods and being nothing more than shallow folklore that has no moral bearing on the modern world. That if we did violate the “word” of “God” that we would burn in hell for all eternity…

Here’s my closing thought for this post: anyone else find it amusing that when politicians are outed for being gay in the US, it’s never the Democrats, it’s always the Republicans? And if there are gay Democrats, they don’t bother to hide it in the first place. Some act like Americans would not accept a gay politician. Yet according to a 1999 Gallup poll:

• 95% would vote for a woman
• 94% would vote for a Catholic
• 92% would vote for a Jew
• 92% would vote for a black
• 79% would vote for a Mormon
• 79% would vote for a homosexual
• 49% would vote for an Atheist

Deck the halls with rampant mindless, shallow consumerism…

Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la…

‘Tis the season of ad nauseum commercials…

Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la…

Don we now our gay garland and tacky carols

————————————————————————

If nothing else, right now at this time, I am grateful for the fact that we have no cable television in our household. My husband and I got rid of it back in October and not a moment too soon. We missed the train wreck that is the ‘holiday season’ barrage of commercials, hocking wares and goods we do not need. We have not seen one commercial yet for anything related to Christmas. What a luxury! I don’t know how anyone else can tolerate it. Now that we’re free from it, we hear only the silence that we need.

Mind you, I have no quarrel with Christmas itself, hell, I don’t give a flying rat’s ass if someone wishes me Merry Christmas. My problem are the carols and the commercials. They are detrimental to everything about the holidays. Yet, the people who should be speaking out against this, the Christians, are the ones who have decided that the “War on Christmas” stems from the fact that a store clerk wishes them a “happy holiday”, or worse yet, to be showered with greetings of “seasons greetings”. But nary a word of the commercials and the hijacked season.

The same group whines if a scene of nativity disappears from public property or if a tree is not decked out with the finest, or someone doesn’t wish them a “Merry Christmas”. Yet, they ignore everything that is actually contrary to Christmas itself; the consumerism, the tree (first used in the 19th century)… the figure of Santa Claus (St. Nick, from the 15th century). Gift giving itself was typically done on New Years Day, which occurred after the Advent, which began on November 11th. The 12 days of Christmas refer to December 26th-January 6th.

Christmas itself was derived from Winter Solstice, Saturnalia, one of many pagan (or heathen if you will; as heath is neither Christian nor Jewish) celebrations, along with Yule. In fact, there is no proof that Jesus was actually born on December 25th; it was an idea that was made popular with the Chronographiai by Sextus Julius Africanus in the 3rd century AD.  There is no mention of the birth date anywhere in the New Testament.  There are theories that the birth happened on January 6th or even in the spring.  The year is also highly disputed.

Also amusing is the fact that Xmas is not at all censoring the word of “Christmas”, which in itself is a contraction of two words, Cristes mæsse, in Old English. The χ (chi), from the Greek character set, is the first letter of Χριστός (Christ), making Xmas in use since the mid-16th century.

Now that I’ve briefly covered the history of it, it’s safe to say that the zealots who believe there is a War on Christmas are the ones aiding and abetting the war because they are participating in many of the elements that they ought to decry if they want to truly celebrate it. But sadly they don’t. They also do not recognise the orthodox day that celebrates the same event, that falls on January 6th (on the Julian Calendar; developed by Julius Caesar), or rather January 19 on the Gregorian Calendar, (the two are 13 days apart).

Meanwhile, I’ll be watching it amused because I don’t have to put up with the commercials and online debates are always more amusing that televised, which always seemed very scripted to me.  There is one other thing I will not be missing and that is the plethora of Christmas specials, which are recycled junked.

Between the commercials and specials, I can say I’m very happy to not have to pay for cable television.

Religion is stagnant; its individual core tenets and principles steadfast and unyielding to change and the evolution of societal norms in the 21^st century. It is inflexible and its followers are most resistant to change when that change is an front to their “moral principles” and what to them is morally acceptable. Stricter beliefs and intolerant leaders create intolerant followers and believers.

The faithful see their beliefs as the only way and the beliefs of others as heathen beliefs that will damn them for eternity. The faithful want to see their children given a proper ‘moral’ upbringing, even if it means forcing their beliefs on others as has been done for hundreds of years before some people said enough is enough.

One subject in the public school that has caused controversy other than mandatory prayer is that of the teaching of creation as an alternative theory (or intelligent design) along with the theory of evolution. At least in the US this has been an area of sensitivity for both religious and secular proponents. It hasn’t been cause for attention here in Canada, or at least in Ontario until opposition leader John Tory brought up the subject of faith-based school funding.

He has made an election promise to create a separate public system for parents who want to send their children to a religious school and it would be publicly funded. This move would violate the sacred boundary that separates church and state. A boundary that the provincial Conservatives have held no respect for, as former Ontario Premier Davis in 1985 reversed his 1971 decision regarding the full-funding of the Catholic school board.

It is already enough of an insult to the taxpaying public that we have to fund the separate Catholic school system along side the public system that is struggling under constant deficits and compounding funding problems brought on by the controversial school funding formula introduced originally by the Harris Conservatives as part of their ‘Common Sense Revolution‘ promise.

The last thing a modern secular society needs is more public funding for the religious agenda. We need a solid line drawn between the two. We cannot and should not endorse the use of public taxpayer funds for a religious education. To create a system based on this idea would be introducing a modern form of segregation.

Additionally, if the public were to fund such a system, what measures would be in place to ensure that the provincial mandated curriculum was followed by all schools and that all students got equal access to the same academic knowledge that their peers in the secular public system would get?

They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs. It’s still called the theory of evolution. ~ John Tory

Why should the public pay for students to be taught Creation? Creation has no place in any classroom unless that classroom is one that teaches philosophy and allows for the debate. Creation has no scientific merit and as such, is untestable because it fails to meet the criteria that would allow for it to be tested as a plausible scientific theory. It should and always remain outside of the science classroom as it is a myth and myths have no place in the world of facts.

Theories in themselves do not have to be factual but they must have testable elements. Creation isn’t even a theory; to be a scientific theory, it needs to be testable based on the scientific method. Evolution is testable given the characteristics. Creation and Intelligent Design cannot be tested because there is no way to test for God.

If parents want this included in their child’s education then they should pay to send their child to a private school. If not then send them to the public school but don’t expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for your child’s religious education. Religion is a personal thing and it does not belong in the public school system.

Tory ignites creationism debate

EDIT (Sept. 6/07, 3:15pm) - A Conservative party spokeswoman, Ingrid Thompson, has issued a statement clarifying the remarks made by provincial Conservative leader John Tory. She has embellished on his earlier comment, explaining that schools that would teach creation in science class would become ineligible for public funding.

If there are schools that teach creationism in science class, they would not be eligible to be funded as part of this proposal.

She went on to add that all faith-based schools that want to qualify for funding would have to follow the Ontario curriculum.

Creationism in science class would disqualify schools for funding: Conservatives

Saying that schools that teach creationism in science class does not undo the damage that was done by John Tory and his endorsement of creationism as a teachable subject.

People are easily offended with the most harmless comments these days. Politicians often find themselves walking on egg shells in an attempt to soothe the most fragile egos. They find themselves unable to speak their minds without someone crying foul.

Consider this statement from Premier Dalton McGuinty on the subject of faith-based school funding:

If you want the kind of Ontario where we invite children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and become sequestered and segregated in their own private schools, then they should vote for Mr. Tory. If they think it’s important that we continue to bring our kids together, so that they grow together and learn from one another, then you should vote for me.

He is advocating that the public system doesn’t discriminate and brings students of different faiths and cultures together for a common purpose: to learn in an academic environment that prizes knowledge and achievement over petty differences. The system has students put those differences aside to work together towards a common goal of achieving academic/practical knowledge. In the process, they even learn something about another religion or culture they might not have known if they were in a school that was for a single faith.

So, what’s the problem?

According to the United Jewish Appeal and the Canadian Jewish Congress the comments were ‘hurtful’ and ‘offensive’ because the faith-based schools teach about tolerance and acceptance. But how can we have tolerance and acceptance when we are segregated along religious lines?

This doesn’t fit into the modern frame of secular Canadian society in which we need to spend more time coming together to learn that our differences should be celebrated. Religion is a divisive subject and as a nation we don’t need anything else to divide us up. We have plenty to keep up divided and feuding.

There is nothing offensive about what Premier McGuinty has says. It’s brutally honest and some people cannot take that level of honesty and prefer to live in their rose-coloured glass world; in their protective bubble.

But the religious groups expressing offence have demanded an apology and have offered flimsey excuses.

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto chair David Engel has come out saying:

The remark is deeply offensive to our community and all faith communities. We just want him to take back the comment that was offensive to our schools. Our schools teach respect for all members of Ontario society – not the opposite – and we encourage our students to strengthen the society around us through their volunteer work and their careers.

You can teach respect just as you can lead a horse to water. You cannot force someone to respect anyone else just as you cannot force a horse to drink. People learn respect when they are around others who are different.

You can give students the skills they need to do their jobs but you cannot teach respect; you cannot force anyone to learn respect; they learn it through personal experience.

Apologize, Jewish groups tell McGuinty