I happened to leave the country on the day that President Obama made his historical statement that he was in favor of same-sex marriage. I had expected his statement to ruffle feathers from those who found such partnerships difficult to reconcile with their religious beliefs, but I arrived back to find that the resulting outcry was completely counter-intuitive.
I had expected that some people might condemn him for a flawed morality. Instead, I found that the offensive was based on the argument that his defense of same-sex marriage represented an attack on religious liberty.
Maybe it is just because when visiting other developed countries it is sometimes easy to forget how it is possible that religious discussion can permeate politics as deeply as it does in the U.S., but nevertheless it seemed unfathomable to me that the president's statement that we should grant some additional rights to some individuals represented an attack on the liberty of others.
After all his statement was about the right to marry, which is a secular legal issue. Even if the state were to recognize same-sex marriages, churches, mosques or synagogues or other places of worship would not be required to hold wedding ceremonies within them or sanction such marriages because the no legal standing is attributed to such ceremonies or sanctions. Where is the attack on liberty?
Soon after that it turned out that many Catholic organizations raised an outcry when Katherine Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary and a practicing Catholic, was invited to speak at the Georgetown University graduation ceremony. Many senior officials, including the Cardinal of Washington wanted the invitation revoked simply because Sebelius fought to get insurance coverage for women using contraceptives.
And this week, the Virginia House killed the appointment of a qualified judicial nominee... because he is gay!
All of these developments suggest that the banner of 'religious liberty' is effectively more akin to the 'right to discriminate.' For the state to treat organized religious groups differently than it does other organizations implies special rights for these groups to behave differently than others. But this requires such religious groups to determine who is in the "in' group, and who is in the 'out' group, and because religious doctrine guides moral behavior, it provides an opportunity for members of the group to condemn the behavior of those not in the group.
Recently the Institute I direct at Arizona State Universe brought together experts in psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, and primatology to examine the origins of xenophobia in modern human societies. Clearly there are deep biological causes for what is now a cognitive social phenomenon. At a cellular level it is obviously advantageous to be able to distinguish foreign organisms within the body. Our primate cousins often rely on rather violent assaults by groups on non-members who may wander into their territory as a way of asserting reproductive control. And some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have argued that group selection is an important force driving human evolution, and that ritual and religious ceremonies that build cohesion established an early advantage for tribal groups as they competed for resources.
Whatever the evolutionary basis of religion, the xenophobia it now generates is clearly maladaptive. In a democratic society, in principle governed by reason, denying the rights of human beings for whom biology differently directs the basic human drives of sexual attraction, or the rights of women or men to control their sexual behavior should not be identified with liberty.
One might rationally argue that individual human beings should be free choose what moral behavior they approve of, and which they don't, subject to the constraints of the law. But when organized religious groups gain power of any form, power over the state, power over women, or power over children, the results inevitably lead to restrictions on liberty based on discrimination.
Happily, the number of adults who claim some religious affiliation has been dropping in the United States at a steady rate, from 91 percent in 1948 to 77 percent in 2008, and most recently in the UK the number of adults surveyed claiming no such affiliation was as high as 50 percent.
It is thus possible to imagine a time when religious adults, and the institutions with which they are affiliated, will be in the minority. Until that time it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to recognize that it is inappropriate for religion to play any role in issues of state in modern democracy. Organized religion, wielding power over the community, is antithetical to the process of what modern democracy should define as liberty. The sooner we are without it, the better.
Lawrence M. Krauss is Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. His most recent book is A Universe from Nothing.
This post originally appeared on richarddawkins.net
Jennifer Knapp: Same-Sex Marriage: The Love That Dares Speak Its Name
If a sufficient majority of people will that a certain thing be done and that thing is in accordance with the Constitution, then we tend to let them have their way. But sufficient majority might not be 51%, it might be a 2/3 supermajority. And if the will of the majority violates the Constitutional rights of the minority, then they don't get their way. Period.
Also, democracy runs on discrimination against policies, not discrimination against people. If 51% of the people want a tax cut, then we institute a tax cut. But we don't then ban the people who opposed the tax cut from eating in certain venues, bearing arms, or marrying. Outside of deciding on policy, all American citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the law, as per the 14th Amendment. You can't just have the government treat groups of people differently just because a difference in sexual orientation or something, not unless you have a very good reason (enough to pass various scrutiny tests such as Rational Basis or Strict Scrutiny when applying the 14th Amendment).
With due all respect, based on your comment you have no idea how the US government works. I think you should stick to where your talents lay. Given that you don't, and given Lawrence makes a lot of sense, I think Lawrence Krauss should speak on whatever wishes.
An opinion, whatever it may be, is just fine. When you start to act in a way that degrades people and takes their freedoms away because you get your underwear in a twist you become wrong, and incredibly childish.
What this article is doing is flipping the one who is making the attack. "Defending" liberty by calling names, belittling and flipping language is not "defense of liberty." It's killing some of your own soldiers and then saying you were "attacked" i.e. Germany 1939 like behavior. The issue here that is frightening is how easy the people on this post will become "defenders of liberty" by burning churches killing "hate mongers", and putting people into "reeducation camps" all in the name of "defending liberty" Be careful you all need to pay attention to how language is used. Beware of those who object to concentration camps and Church burning as "haters of liberty" and enemies of "freedom" because I'm sure you'll be next.
No one here has "flipped language"(and your Germany/Poland analogy is so full of holes that I don't even want to derail this thing by getting into that). I mean...I hate to be so blunt here but WTF are you even talking about here?!
"Certainly there are liberal Christians who are open minded about these things. They're not the problem." selawarepatterns 05/29/12
(In other words people who don't agree with me are "the problem" How does one solve 'the problem"? do we reeducate them, murder them call them names? ect?)
"The problem is that those fundamentalist wingnuts got control of the religious organizations." - Brin Frang (once again another person who see's the issue as "a problem" instead of a valid difference in view. wing nuts are in control of organizations. what should we do? Kill them, murder them put them in reeducation camps?)
"What!!! You aren't paying for a thing. Sorry but I feel zero sympathy for religious people" -realitychk13. (zero sympathy. Would he have sympathy is they were murdered?)
"Happily, the number of adults who claim some religious affiliation has been dropping in the United States at a steady rate, from 91 percent in 1948 to 77 percent in 2008, and most recently in the UK the number of adults surveyed claiming no such affiliation was as high as 50 percent." -author of article. (happily!?!? This means this is GOOD news? eliminating religion is not a tragedy it's "good news" How far should we take this "good news?"
So what?
Why should society be ran based on tradition? Why should we respect the traditions that discriminate against various minority groups?
Finally, why should I respect any religious tradition as a way to run policy when you have no evidence of a god or the accuracy of much of anything within the Christian religion? And why should I let Christians discriminate against my gay friends and stop them from marrying? I think you need a far better excuse than tradition to answer those questions.
Concerning liberty, what about the liberty of my gay friends who want to marry?
"The issue here that is frightening is how easy the people on this post will become "defenders of liberty" by burning churches killing "hate mongers", and putting people into "reeducation camps" all in the name of "defending liberty""
NO WHERE in Lawrence's blog nor in this comment forum has anyone said or suggested ANYTHING remotely like that. Seriously, where did you get this idea? What serious basis do you have for this accusation? I think this accusation is baseless and is pure fear and bigotry.
It must never be allowed to have a foothold. The consequence is catastrophic.
To a mind absorbed in a totalizing faith, gay marriage, contraception, and the like probably do seem like infringements on their liberties, because such issues confront people against their will with ideas external to their beliefs. It's a kind of forced education, and if you think back to a class you hated in high school you know how unpleasant being forced to learn can feel.
Don't get me wrong: In my view it's high time these people learn acceptance, so I'm not averse to confronting them with concepts they are uncomfortable with. It's not a violation of your civil liberties to be exposed to other worldviews. But I have sympathy.
What is the source of that finding?
That's certainly what the christotaliban wants.
The entire premise of our country is the idea that you can pursue individual liberty and happiness, free from the interference of a government using a specific religious belief system to determine it's laws.
The brilliance of the founding fathers was to realize that the only way to protect *individual* religious freedom for all is to have a government that is completely secular. (they were not trying to protect organized religion)
You'll notice the ONLY opposition to allowing gay americans from holding a legal marriage contract, is an opposition from RELIGIOUS belief.
That is not being addressed in this issue enough, or really at all.