Quote of the day: Thos. Jefferson on Christian dogmatism

the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man; outlines which it is lamentable he did not live to fill up. Epictetus and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of the duties and charities we owe to others. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems,* invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, is a most desirable object, and one to which Priestley has successfully devoted his labors and learning. It would in time, it is to be hoped, effect a quiet euthanasia of the heresies of bigotry and fanaticism which have so long triumphed over human reason, and so generally and deeply afflicted mankind; but this work is to be begun by winnowing the grain from the chaff of the historians of his life.

* e. g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.

From Jefferson's letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819.

Benjamin Franklin on Jesus

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...."


(from a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, about one month before Dr. Franklin's death)

There is no room for self-righteousness, O Ye Comfortable Ones

There are those in our country who are expressing denial, disbelief or, worst of all, self-righteousness regarding the awful plight of so many Americans. I have seen sentiments ranging from "You made your bed, you sleep in it" to "the reason jobs are being lost is because people believe Democratic scare tactics and are not spending money -- spend your money folks!" This is in utter blindness to the cold hard fact that so many of us have none to spend and cannot even pay the bills.

Today in my World Wide Meanderings I came across the full "Meditation XVII" by John Donne. This piece contains a very famous phrase, but is so beautiful it deserves a full read and then a mulling-over.

It gets to the crux of my own innate sense that what happens to one of us happens to all of us; that the mistakes made by one of us have been made by all of us; that where each one of us remains open to growth of understanding we each can bring all of us along; that where one of us remains willfully blind we none of us can see. Donne's quaint and beautiful Jacobean prose still resonates so powerfully, these 386 years after he quilled them:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction.

Gay Marriage Was Decided 197 years ago:Get Over It

**UPDATED: Please forgive my horrible mis-citation. Madison wrote Federalist Papers, not Jefferson. Duh.**

I'm sick and tired of gay marriage being a key issue in politics. Get over it, people!

As a preamble, I feel the need to warn you: I refuse to get into debates about the values and/or downfalls of any one religion. I realize that in discussing morals and base values the line between politics and religion can be blurred. Although I do personally find the religious right offensive, abrasive, and sometimes just plain stupid -- I appreciate the value of faith, and would never attack an individual on the basis of their beliefs. You would think that a faction so often berated for their beliefs would not attack others simply because of their love life. Since when are we a nation of Evangelists?

On that note, a law based solely on religious beliefs would be entirely unconstitutional. Have we forgotten about separation of church and state? Apparently we have. Check out our coinage, our Pledge of Allegiance, the mottos plastered all over federal buildings. I'm sick of it.

Some argue that the words "separation of church and state" never appear in the Constitution, and so there need be no concern over religious rule of law. Alright. How about the 1st amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It was the foremost concern of our founding fathers -- many of whom (religious themselves) came to the New World to escape intolerance perpetrated by ruling religion elsewhere.

If that's not enough, some may argue that the Constitution does not protect sexual rights. Well...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Amendment IX)

How about the big one?

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." (Amendment XIV, Section 1)

I'd like to point out that any ban appearing in a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented and untrue to the original spirit of the document. The Constitution and joined Bill of Rights are intended to protect the civil liberties of the people from institutionalized oppression, not to prohibit so called undesired behavior by individuals. As shown in the Federalist Papers (a series of 85 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- designed to grow the support base for the Constitution during the failure of the Articles of Federation) [see www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/], the major goal of the founding fathers was to protect the people from the people, and thus the tyranny inherent in big government. America has been a haven for systematic intolerence only in our worst hours. Why should we revert to the days of segregation and the destruction of civil rights based only upon arbitrary categorical labels?!

If you believe that "it is wrong to be gay," then don't be gay! How is gay marriage hurting the country? If single parents can raise functioning productive citizens, then so can LGBTQ couples. Why is family planning a governmental issue anyway? Laws against murder for example, are devised because the act directly threatens the people. What is the threat of two people in love, who only want an official outlet for it?

I will not even justify the argument that individuals choose to be gay with a counter-argument. I merely ask: Do you choose to be straight? Hypothetically, do you think you would suddenly be aroused by members of the same sex if you chose to be gay?

I've heard people say that "if gay marriage is allowed, polygamy will be next!" This is simply hogwash. First off, I'm not sure how I feel about the intolerance of polygamy. But more importantly, our currently adopted policies concerning marriage are very specifically written for unions of two people. The laws can be immediately put into effect for gay marriage without any changes to policy whatsoever. Multiple marriage (MM- a term which is more PC than polygamy as that only applies to men with many wives and not vice versa), cannot be injected into our system. That would require multitudinous amendments and retractions to current policy, which would most likely take at least a decade to accomplish.

Furthermore, do not permit those who would ban gay marriage to call themselves "conservative."  Conservatism is based on the belief that the government has absolutely no business butting into the people's personal lives. By calling themselves conservative, these haters (for lack of a better modern phrase) are merely trying to trick the public -- most of whom pull the lever for their party members without knowing the issues.

Not too long ago it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. I'm sure that there are still people in this country who disagree with that act. I'm also sure that their protest is strongly founded in faith. Does this mean we should ban racial integration again? I thought we've gone over all of this... SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a ban on gay marriage would be in DIRECT violation of the 14th amendment. By being married, straight couples receive many benefits financially and legally. I don't feel like listing them, so look it up if you don't take my word for it. "Equal protection" as named in the 14th amendment applies to all priveleges and rights allotted to the people. If one receives them, all must receive them. This country was founded on the belief that all political factions should be feared, monitered closely, and protected, whether in the majority OR minority. I've taken this directly from a Madison Federalist Paper (#51 if my memory serves me correctly).

Marriage should not be a legal institution. Let any two people be joined in a civil union, with equal priveleges given to all regardless of color, sex, age (as long as consenting), or any mixture thereof. If a couple wishes to have a ceremony outside of City Hall, let them use whatever place of worship that will have them.

So STFU already.

Did I miss anything?

Being tHere Now

Andrew Sullivan on whether to photograph or not photograph an experience:

... why is remembering an event the key to experiencing it fully? Sometimes, being there, without mediation, without worrying about whether one day it will be forgotten, just being there is what matters. Life is now; and when we obsess about storing it for the future, we forget to experience it in the only way we truly can: in the present.

Amen! I love taking and looking at photos, mind you, but love even more simply having experiences that I am not attempting simultaneously to document. Either you have the experience, OR you document it through a "how will this look on paper?" lens.

When you die, you can't take your photo -- or anything you can see or think you "have" -- along with you. We have nothing. Including other people, even our own children. But when I watched my mother die it became clear, it is exactly our experience that does continue, on both sides of the veil.