Cathy Young, responding in part to my post here, writes:
Incidentally, in various polls, about 70% of Americans favor a law requiring a woman to notify her husband — some polls include “partner” as well — if she’s having an abortion. So either the vast majority of Americans support male patriarchal ownership of women, or there is something else at stake. Another possibility – one that seems more likely – is that the majority of Americans haven’t given enough thought to the question to have an informed opinion. Husband notification is an obscure issue, and it’s likely that many of the people who were polled never knew about the potential downsides of such a law. If this were a hotly debated, much-talked about issue, the pro-choice objections to husband notification – both its sexist roots, and the concern that such a law might lead to women being punished by their husbands through emotional abuse, or through spreading the word that she’s had an abortion, or through cutting her access to shared family resources – would be much more generally known. My speculation is that if that were the case, we’d see radically different poll results. Cathy’s post implies that if lefties criticize a sexist (racist, homophobic, etc) policy , that’s in some way equivilent to accusing anyone who supports the policy of being “a fascist, a neanderthal, or a male chauvinist pig.” I don’t think that’s the case. I can think of nonsexist reasons for someone to support a husband-notification policy: Maybe they want to encourage fathers to be more connected to children (as fathers would be, in a less sexist society), for example. It is because I think non-sexist people sometimes support sexist policies that I make the arguments I do; I’m hoping that, if I can convince someone that a policy is rooted in sexist assumptions, that will make them less likely to support it.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
One justification is that a husband has a right to know about his child’s medical status. That’s totally uncontroversial after birth, what’s the difference before birth? It’s interesting that this line of reasoning sidesteps all the arguments about sterilisation, the pill, STD tests and control of your spouse’s reproductive system – because we know an actual child exists and most people accept the idea of parental rights over their children. It’s a question of “when do they begin?” and “can they be trumped by other people’s rights?”. There’s also quite a sharp distinction which can be made between the woman’s medical status and the fetus’s – could could justify a husband knowing the results of a blood test on the fetus, but about a test on the woman, or that she’s been drinking wine.
Could you spell out the “sexist roots” a bit more? I’m not sure they apply to an argument structured like this (or not if the law is amended so that a woman has the same legal right to be notified, which may be totally pointless, but would be logically neccessary). I’m not sure it’s “dispensing with women’s rights to protect marriage”, as in the other post, rather it is allowing fathers to know information about their children. I suppose framed like that it’s analogous to a parent being told their child has recieved a transplant. They may know that the other parent is the only possible donor, but that isn’t an infringement of the donor’s privacy.
I’m hoping that, if I can convince someone that a policy is rooted in sexist assumptions, that will make them less likely to support it.
Nah, we’ll just find a different set of assumptions to base it on. :P
I don’t really understand what “parental notification” is all about. Does the doctor call a woman’s husband BEFORE the abortion, and ask for his consent? Is it a legal thing, does he have to sign some kind of form? Or does the doctor just ring up the husband afterwards, “By the way, your wife had an abortion today.” Also, is it spousal notification, or parental notification? What if the husband is not the father of the child? Is he still informed of the abortion? Or is the purported non-husband informed of the abortion? What if the woman refuses to disclose the identity of the father of the child? Is she denied an abortion? Taken to court? What is the point of informing the father of an abortion, anyway? It’s not like he can opt to transfer the baby into his womb and save it from abortion. Is the husband “supposed” to talk his wife out of it, or something? Why is it in the state’s interest to make legislation that encourages husbands to talk their wives out of abortions?
The whole thing sounds too convoluted, and doesn’t seem to be worth the trouble. Besides, I think it sounds like an infringement on the woman’s right to medical privacy. Do hospitals call up wives and tell them “By the way, your husband came in for an STD test today, and it turns out he has herpes,”? Do hospitals require a woman to sign off her approval on her husband’s vasectomy? I don’t know, but I somehow doubt it. Fertilization of an egg is definately something a man takes part in, but as of now, pregnancy is not. It really only makes sense to keep health decisions concerning pregnancy private between woman and doctor.
I think the issue I have is that I don’t think the law or the government should be involved at all. I think there is an underlying assumption that clinics and facilities which provide abortions as one of their services are in the business of persuading women to have an abortion, and that just isn’t true.
I certainly think that someone seeking an abortion should be encouraged to talk about the decision with the people who are close to her. I think a clinic can and should provide that counsel, but I think that making a law to force creates a much more difficult and problematic issue. It puts a woman in the position of having to lie if she feels strongly about terminating a pregnancy. It creates an antagonistic, hostile relationship between a woman and those who are providing her medical care. It reduces the effectiveness of her medical care. It also sends a message that the government thinks she isn’t competent enough to make descisions about her own life or to take care of her own family dynamics.
It seems to me that a woman seeking an abortion who doesn’t want to talk to her partner or spouse is in a situation where she could use some other kinds of support. Good counselling about her options and the opportunity for couples counseling could be made available as an option for her and her partner rather than simply requiring her or some other agency to inform her spouse.
It seems to me, like many things, legislating personal decisions is like cutting off a finger to cure a hangnail. I do think that notification laws actually can create more antagonism between men and women because it also sends a message to men that women can’t be trusted to be their full partners and that the government should be empowered to step in and be parental in nature.
nik,
If we were talking about a child, then it would be legally, physically and conceptually clearly seperable from its mother, and it would make sense for its father to have an equal say. Not just notification that a decision has been made, but the ability to potentially counter that decision.
However, we are talking about a fetus (or a blastocyte) which is physically, conceptually and legally difficult to seperate from its mother (at least in such a way that it survives the process). The fetus is enveloped by its mother’s privacy rights in a way that a child is not.
Or so it seems to me.
“Spousal notification” sound so innocuous at first glance. Yeah, just as we can imagine any parent like us (thoughtful, non-abusive, with their child’s besti nterest at heart) wanting to be told if their daughter is going to have an abortion, we (or at least I) can imagine any decent, loving husband wanting to know if his wife is about to undergo a significant medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.
But not nearly as many people are willing to countenance what an actual law would entail (just as many people who oppose abortion don’t want laws barring the procedure). Perhaps if you phrased it as “should married women who have abortions without having told their husbands beforehand be fined or go to jail? Should doctors who perform abortions for women without either proof that a woman is unmarried or that her husband has been notified be fined, lose their licenses or go to jail?” there would be a somewhat different response.
I think 70% of the people support husband notification because 70% of the people would have no problem notifying their husband or potential future husband, or they are husbands themselves. That gets to Ampersand’s point
I don’t know if its so much “not given enough thought” as much as it is “What’s the big deal”.
*******************************
Aviner – read the opinion and dissent here:
Casey Opinion
I think you will get most of your questions answered.
Specifically
They do (and are obligated to) if he has HIV
Not approval but some states have spousal notification for contraceptive sterilization.
Sam the Girl writes:
The court in Roe would disagree with you.
The general assumption in all of these discussions from those opposed to notification is that the husband has no rights. That simply is not true and the majority opinon in the Casey case acknowledged that. They simply determined that the husband’s rights were not compelling enough to outweigh the undue burden that notification would place on the woman.
Roe follows a similar line in dealing with the government’s right to stick its nose into our private business. The court determined that states do have some legitimate interest in matters of privacy. In Roe, they weighed the states interest against that of the woman seeking abortion and, for better or worse, came up with a framework for determining when the balance tipped toward the state. In Casey, they weighed the Husband’s rights against that of the woman seeking abortion and, again for better or worse, determined that the scales don’t tip toward the husband at any point based on the structure of the provision in the law (that doesn’t mean that husband notification is dead). Alito’s dissent disagreed only to the extent that while the notification provision did present a burden to the woman that burden was not undue as defined by precedent (he relied exclusively on O’Connor opinions) and therefore the husbands right was sufficient to allow the provision.
O’Connor’s opinion in the Casey case basically took that line.
Gengwell, thanks.
It seems to me that the court took a particular view on the justification of the legislation. That the husband had as “interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying” and that the State would be “requir[ing] a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices”. They then go on about a slippery slope regarding endangering the fetus’ safety, contraceptives and reproductive organs.
It seems to me that if you found the argument upon a parents right to know about the health of their children, then much of this concern is bypassed. Though this would entail some changes to the law.
This issue really concerns me. I’m not as worried about Choice 4 Men; I think they’re counter-balanced by anti-abortion groups and the Promise Keepers.
But I’ve had this heated discussion with feminist women and pro-choice men, and I’m always surprised to find those who firmly believe in (male) partner notification, especially husband notification.
These are people who have thought about and debated their positions, so it’s not ignorance. It’s entitlement (for the men) and a lack of compassion. So many people can’t imagine situations outside of their own experiences to see the larger ramifications for women and for choice.
I think Judge Alito was right, and Justice O’Connor in criticizing his dissent was wrong, in treating marriage as creating a connection between a woman and her husband that is different in kind from any other. Requiring her to notify her husband does not give him a veto. Requiring her to notify him about a contemplated abortion does not entail that she notify him about anything that might endanger their child.
I believe Judge Alito and Justice O’Connor (and other critics of his position, including some posters here) have different theories of marriage, both of which are within the accepted traditions of American law and culture. This is a discussion worth having. I have written more about this at http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2005/11/when-it-comes-to-abortion-husband-is.html
Hmmm. entitlement? I suppose that would be right. Any exercise of rights could be viewed as entitlement. After all, women feel they are entitled to have abortions, correct? Are women the only ones who get to have entitlements?
Lack of compassion – I hardly think so. On the contrary, a common argument for husband notification is that the husband would be concerned about his wife and their unborn child. I don’t see this as having a “compassionless” component at all.
It seems to me that if you found the argument upon a parents right to know about the health of their children, then much of this concern is bypassed
No, it wouldn’t. Because you would still be saying that the father’s right to know about the health of his “child”–meaning a fetus or an embryo that won’t even become a child if the mother terminates the pregnancy–is more important than the woman’s self-ownership.
And you will be opening the door to forcing women to notify their husbands if they, say, take contraceptives that work post-fertilization, or if they eat anything non-doctor-approved during their pregnancies. All of this is possible under the logic that the father’s rights in the fetus/embryo are more important than the woman’s self-ownership rights.
Women don’t lose dominion over themselves by virtue of getting married and being potential bearers of their husbands’ children. Forcing a woman to inform her husband about what she does with her body means taking away her sovereignty, and it’s not justified by the fact that she’s carrying a fetus with her husband’s DNA. His interest in his potential children cannot trump her self-ownership.
Are women the only ones who get to have entitlements?
To their bodies, and the contents therein? Yes.
Well, that’s not exactly true. A marriage is a contract wherein both parties conceed certain sovereignty include bodily sovereignty for the mutual benefit of the union.
Thank you! Finally someone against the notification provision recognizes that the husband does have a legitimate interest.
That is certainly the conclusion the court came to in this go round. But the issue is not dead. All a state needs to do is move the “burden” bar to a point just under “undue” and a notification provision will be valid.
Gengwall: Lack of compassion – I hardly think so. On the contrary, a common argument for husband notification is that the husband would be concerned about his wife and their unborn child. I don’t see this as having a “compassionless” component at all.
Of course it’s compassionless. It’s completely unfeeling.
If a woman wants to tell her husband she’s having an abortion, of course she should do so.
If a woman doesn’t want to tell her husband she’s having an abortion, she shouldn’t have to do so.
Your argument that forcing this on her this isn’t “compassionless” works only if you completely disregard any feelings the woman has. Evidently you feel that a woman’s feelings are irrelevant, and for the state to ride roughshod over them is not in the least “compassionless”.
It’s not the government’s job to make a bad marriage even worse.
Maybe I misunderstood. I felt that Sarahlynn was saying that men were compassionless by seeking this “entitlement”. At least my response was to that effect.
If, as you suggest, she was saying the legislature was compassionless then that argument could be made. I haven’t seen the law per se but the fact it had exemptions indicates to me at least some amount of compassion on the legslature’s part. It may be that it isn’t compassionate enough in some people’s eyes (including possibly mine) but I still wouldn’t call it compassionless.
I may be inclined to supporting abortion restrictions, but I have to say that the idea of “husband notification” is absolutely appalling.
In my perspective, a fetus is a valuable entity in it’s own right; its value has nothing to do with what the mother OR the father decides. The only way that abortion becomes acceptable (again, my view) is when this “valuable entity” becomes an unacceptable burden to the mother.
In this framework, the husband/father has no legal standing whatsoever. He neither has rights over the woman OR the fetus. He gets no choice because there’s no special burden on *him*. I mean, why not also notify a woman’s parents? It’s their grandchild, after all.
And what about cases where a woman’s life is in danger? Her husband must be notified then also? Keeping in mind that while notification is not “permission”, it can certainly act that way if the husband decides to divorce his wife or badly mistreat her as a result. What if she was raped but the husband thinks she had an affair? What if the husband can’t be found?
The “husband notification” thing can’t be described as any way other than sexist, IMHO. It’s giving control to someone who should have no (legal) say, but he’s getting it because he’s a *man* and it’s “his” wife.
I know a lot of people say that one can’t be “pro-life+feminist”, but I’ll argue that “pro-choice+husband notification” is a much more sexist position.
If this is the way the future is going, makes one wonder why any female would want to marry in the future. Her body is her own, before and during marriage. Period. She does not need to inform anyone of her decisions. If she chooses to fine, but it should never be a requirement.
If this is the way the future is going, makes one wonder why any female would want to marry in the future. Her body is her own, before and during marriage. Period.
This is not a popular belief in the society at large.
I do not own my body free and clear. It is a gift from God, and He holds all the rights to it. I have lifetime tenancy, and a great deal of latitude in its use, but ultimately, it does not belong to me. In addition, my wife has a stewardship interest in my body; she is entitled to share it, within certain boundaries. The converse is true, and I have some say in the use of her body; our stewardship is complementary, not unidirectional.
I dare say that a large number of American married couples, certainly a large majority of Christian couples, would agree with my formulation to a much larger extent than the “it’s my body period” formulation. We just don’t believe that.
And that, I suspect, is the reason that the vast majority of Americans agree that husbands should be notified of an abortion, or that wives should be notified of a sterilization. (Probably most folks would go farther and support permission, not just notification.) In fact, the survey in question is just about support for a law requiring such notification; I imagine the percentage of people who believe that a spouse is morally entitled to notification is higher than those who believe the state should also be the enforcer.
There were exceptions in the law. Read the opinons here:
Casey
Ampersand, for one, disagrees in this entry.
Well, in the first place, it is not accurate to say the husband (or the state)has no legal say. You may not think he should have, but the courts disagree. Second, situations where actions by one person are subject to some level of control by another is a gender nuetral situation – it is not inherently sexist. Third, although it may be bad policy to make laws that go one way in regards to gender that does not make them automatically unconstitutional (although quite frequently they are). The reality of this situation is that it truly can only go one way. It is gender specific not by choice but by default. Had the legislature created a law in one direction that applies to activity that can go either way, I think there would have been much better grounds to call it sexist.
If a pregnant woman was going to have chemotherapy which would kill the fetus, should she have to notify her husband before getting an abortion and beginning treatment?
If a pregnant woman was going to have surgery which would, as a side effect, kill the fetus, should she have to notify her husband before getting the surgery done?
If a pregnant woman’s estranged husband is a member of a street gang, should she have to notify him before getting an abortion?
If a pregnant woman’s husband has abandoned her, should she have to notify him before getting an abortion?
I suspect these questions would get very different polling results. People answer poll questions with tunnel vision. So they simply look at their own lives and think “well, my spouse and I talk over everything” and never consider that some people’s lives might be very different for very good reasons.
Just because I haven’t seen it mentioned yet I want to remind people that pregnant women face increased violence from male partners.
In a study published last month in Child Maltreatment, researcher Cara Krulewitch of the University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Nursing found that between 1994 and 1998, pregnant women in Maryland were twice as likely to be murdered as non-pregnant women of the same age. Several other studies investigating death records in other states suggest that homicide, though continually underreported, is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, reported Salon.
I am sure there is no law saying so although had the provision been upheld I could see the potential for one. There may be a differentiation legally between direct causes and indirect causes which would preclude laws that accomplish the above. I’m not sure how I personally feel about that. Part of me says “that goes too far” but another part says “there is no difference so ‘yes’ notification should be required.
These circumstances would have been covered in the exceptions.
gengwall, my point was not about any particular law but about the survey results. I was saying that the percentage of support for spousal notification is so high because people usually only think in very simple and personal terms when answering poll questions unless those questions force them to consider the issues more deeply.
That said, it’s not clear to me that the exceptions in the PA law would have covered the husband in the street gang. Nor does it cover the woman who was abandoned since it required that a diligent effort be made — they were going to make women seek out the men who had abandoned them. The Supreme Court’s decision also pointed out that
How about this poll question “If a woman has a very good reason for not wanting to contact her husband about her decision to have an abortion, should she be forced to do so anyway?”
Andi F, exactly. Gengwall, by compassion I mean simply the ability to imagine life in a situation much different from one’s own.
It’s beyond ridiculous to assume that all marriages are equal partnerships wherein a woman might safely tell her husband that she doesn’t want any more children.
I felt that Sarahlynn was saying that men were compassionless by seeking this “entitlement”. At least my response was to that effect.
I can’t speak for what Sarahlynn meant, but yes, if a man wants to force his wife to tell him if she’s had an abortion, regardless of whether or not she wants to tell him, that’s compassionless. Your argument rests on your idea that only the man’s feelings matter: you evidently don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all.
These circumstances would have been covered in the exceptions.
So what? She’d still have a long wait for a court date. I was divorced in ’93; there was no property and no children involved. He finally signed the damn papers, so it was uncontested. I still had to wait over three months for a court date. If three months go by, that woman won’t be able to obtain an abortion, even if she would be covered by the “exceptions”. She has a time frame to operate in. Husband notification is just another back-door way to make abortion unavailable.
Robert, just because you have those beliefs about marriage and possibly most Americans have those beliefs about marriage (and I don’t agree that most do, because I have no way of knowing, and absent a poll you don’t know either), does not mean those beliefs should be made law. Beliefs about the nature of marriage generally fall under the category of religious belief, and the First Amendment dictates that Americans have the right to religious liberty, and that includes not being forced to abide by other people’s specifically religious beliefs (that is to say, beliefs which hold no secular analog–i.e., there are good secular reasons not to rape, for instance, but no secular basis for believing my body belongs to my hypothetical husband in any way, shape, or form).
As for the idea that I should care that the courts don’t agree I own my body outright, may I refer you to the Dredd Scott decision. The courts are not always just in their decision-making. And it’s very odd that I own my body when it comes to surgery (anything but abortion), and I own my body when it comes to sexual consent, and I own my body when it comes to blood and organ donation, but I don’t own my body when it comes to marriage and to reproductive decisions? Run that by me again?
Building on Roberts witness, and Sam The Girl’s excellent post,
It is Judeo/Christian (possibly Abrahamic) that a man and woman become one flesh when married, I believe this as well, and see it in the Spiritual aspect even more strongly. Christians are called to extend this in the edict to love our neighbors, the helpless and our enemies. Christ uses the allegory of God as the Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride for a reason. (Sadly this is frequently forgotten by the body which often prefers justice over Grace.)
I find myself perplexed over my feelings that spousal notification is wrong. I tend to believe that sharing our lives and burdens is the way to go in relationships. However, in one where the partners are afraid or threatened of sharing information such as pregnancy is symptomatic of such dysfunction that forcing a person to do what would be a natural response in a healthy relationship shows less compassion for that person than giving support, comfort and counsel. The fact that a partner would not want to share is telling in itself of the state of things at home. If the woman has had an affair, should the State force her to inform the husband? If he is violent, addicted, unavailable? I do not think so. It is incumbent on people to have the space to grow and develop in their walk at their rate. Robert stated a responsibility to a higher authority than the government, this is true. However the law of love while demanding accountability is totally worthless without the other side which is free will and the right to choose ones path.
Ideally, partners will care for each other and support each other in love and kindness, and cherish life in all of its forms and stages. The reality is many folks are selfish, entitled and hurting, and all make mistakes. If we work on helping those that are marginalized than the concept of Big Brother performing what we should as a community have prevented becomes absurd.
I do believe that ignorance is the cause of the 70% support. It is one of those things that sounds right when you first hear it, like many things though it does not hold up under scrutiny. (I have heard the argument, “If she has the baby she will want him to support it, why shouldn’t he have a say before hand?… They want it both ways!” Would you want to tell this person anything? Sigh…)
The effort to empower the Government to do things in our private lives is telling of our fears and failures to deal with each other as we should. Blessings.
Notification is such an incredibly infantalizing concept with regards to women as is, I find it amusing that our newest (presumably) anti-choice person is even attempting to defend it. What is intended in this type of law is very clear, regardless of how much you wish to stress that a husband’s interests are legitimate – that women are obligated to report back to someone because they are incapable of making correct decisions for themselves. Why have a law such as this, if not as a first step in an attempt to remove bodily autonomy from the individual and hand it over to those that ‘know better’. The idea that a law is simply there as notification is ludicrous – the government wishes to shit stir for jollies? I don’t think so.
As for another comment made earlier, does a fetus have equal right to life as a mother. Resounding heck no. Pregnancy is no joke, nor is the toll it takes on your body or the risks you face as a woman when going through a pregnancy. How many times must it be said that women are not incubators, and individuals in all other cases are not forced to give up their own bodily integrity and autonomy to ensure the life of another.
It is Judeo/Christian (possibly Abrahamic) that a man and woman become one flesh when married
Christian, actually.
What are these “polls”?
Kim,
I believe the effort is on one hand an attempt to broaden the debate to where it is not regarded as, “because they are incapable of making correct decisions for themselves.” Many feel that it simply is not (the decision) related simply to “themselves” (women) as a fetus for many is simply another stage of human life, different as many stages are. The other reason many see as legitimating is that for most, pregnancy is a choice, as sex is a choice and as behavior has responsibilities and predictable outcomes. With only one exception that I know of pregnancy is preceded by sex. As most sex is by choice and with partners one chooses the argument could be made that there is an implied responsibility to include the partners in the information loop when making decisions regarding the effects of the union. I believe most folks do, but many of those who do not have compelling reasons not to; no law should inhibit them from making that decision.
Some may think if it is infantilizing for a woman to be expected to share information with a potential father, what does that say about perceptions of the father’s ability to handle such news responsibly? Admittedly, there is lots of evidence in that discussion to support the need for secrecy. However it is a legitimate point.
Still, the fact is that if people treated each other with greater respect, partners of each other and individuals of themselves, then it stands to reason that greater respect would be shown to the product of that loving act and the need for this discussion would be moot. It seems a very human argument that people need the right to harm others to avoid being harmed or as a result of being harmed… there is something in there that just doesn’t make sense.
Understand you are to be congratulated, blessings to you and your growing family. Sorry for the late notice, I have been out of the loop.
Mythago,
Christ when He stated His opposition to divorce (Matthew, Sermon on the Mount) and later references to the nature of the union in marriage, was only restating pre-Helenization beliefs held by conservative Jews. I am not at my office where my library is, but it will not be hard to find references in the Chumash to support this. I believe it is also part of the Beliefs in Islam, but I will have to contact a Moslem colleague to reference this. If so, that would make it common to all three of the Abrahamic faiths. Blessings.
“Well, that’s not exactly true. A marriage is a contract wherein both parties conceed certain sovereignty include bodily sovereignty for the mutual benefit of the union.”
That’s crap. It’s not true, either. Marital rape is now illegal, and you can’t force your spouse to donate a kidney, or not donate a kidney, take out life insurance or not take out life insurance. Nowhere in the legal definition of marriage does it say that you sign your body and personal autonomy over to your spouse. Culturally, that may sometimes be the practice, but it’s not in the law.
Rock,
Although you are correct that the “one flesh” reference comes from Genesis, you are not correct to assume that because of that Judaism shares a similar perspective on divorce with Christianity. While divorce is held as an absolute evil, or even impossible in many branches of Christianity, the Jewish tradition is that it is possible and sometimes preferable to keeping intact a marriage that is clearly harmful in some way. This is an ancient teaching, too, not the result of “hellenization” as you seem to imply. Some of the oldest Jewish documents preserved to this day are ketubot (marriage contracts) and get (decrees of divorce.)
The religious Jewish view of marriage isn’t exactly one-flesh. Rather, it’s that the husband owns his wife, just like he does his children and property. I don’t remember whether traditionally husbands are allowed to mutilate or kill their wives according to the Hebrew Bible, but I do know for a fact that the Tenth Commandment lists a man’s wife as his property.
More to the point, the explanation for the 70% figure I read on Volokh is that people mostly imagine things as applicable to their own situations. That is, most relationships are healthy and stable, so a non-abused woman thinks, “If I wanted to have an abortion, would I tell my husband about it?”, answers “Of course I would,” and thence concludes that it’s a good idea to require spousal notification by law. Similarly, a man in a healthy relationship puts himself in his wife’s shoes, concludes exactly the same thing, and similarly concludes that mandatory spousal notification is good.
I don’t know the figures in countries other than the United States, but I hypothesize that this partly stems from American puritanism, so in most other developed countries the figure will be lower, even though if abortion law is any indication of the population’s views, the United States has a much more pro-choice population than most other countries. Does anyone here know of any similar polls conducted outside the USA?
What’s being overlooked by both sides in this discussion is that it attempts to interfere in the marital relationship by determining what a couple *should* discuss.
No one is arguing against the concept that in the best of all possible worlds, women would discuss these issues with their spouses. But to allow the state to define what a marital relationship *should* look like opens up a rather slippery slope, not only in the area of reproductive rights, but marriage itself.
What if the state decided that spousal notification should be required to open a savings account? Or purchase a car? Or any of the other myriad decisions, large and small, that married people make on their own every day. What gives the state the right to determine what decisions a married couple should, and should not, BY LAW, discuss?
It’s a wonderful idea for couples to discuss decisions. It’s not a wonderful idea to have the state *mandate* those discussions.
first, the disclaimers: i think spousal notification ought not be required, i am 100% in the pro-choice camp, and i am extremely worried about SCOTUS assaults on the right to privacy.
okay, having said that…here’s my question: alito’s decision seems to me to be very legalistic. i think in this case, the law may have lined up with his personal beliefs, but that does not necessarily mean that those beliefs informed his decision. the (admittedly little) i’ve read on him comfirms that this is often his judicial reasoning. is it possible that he is so legalistic that he will see roe v. wade as a precedent he will have to defend? after all, he didn’t say that he thought wives should have to notify their husbands, just that he believed that the law was technically constitutional.
i have to say that i am still withholding judgement on the man, although i would be glad to hear about facts on either side that would change my mind.
No, my point is that both person’s feelings matter.
No – what is intended by this kind of law is to ensure that the husbands legitimate interests (which I’m glad to see you recognize) are met. Your ability to make a decision yea or nea about abortion is not addressed at all in the notification provision. (It is however in the informed consent provision – see below)
First, there are many things that require spousal notification and none of them are because the law thinks you can’t make a decision. They are out of respect for the other person’s interest in that decision.
Second, I don’t know where you get this idea in the first place. The law doesn’t say you have to ask your husband if it’s a good idea. It simply states you have to tell him you are doing it. Nothing in the requirement suggests that you need advice or that you need to solicit your husband’s opinion in any way.
Third, if you want to find something that is infantalizing I’m amazed you aren’t screaming about the parts of the PA law that were upheld. The informed consent provision particularly assumes that you need to read a bunch of literature before you are educated enough to decide to have an abortion. Of course, the court including Ms. O’Connor, upheld that portion of the law. They also upheld the parental concent portion so I guess you feel infantalizing teenagers is ok since they are so much closer to infanthood anyway and therefore actual are incapable of making up their minds.
I wouldn’t assume that and the notification provision certainly doesn’t assume it either.
Lilith,
You are correct in several of your observations.
Divorce was granted by Yahweh to the Jews reluctantly and became based around the arcane words “erwat dabar”, or an indecent thing. (Deut. 24:10) Shammai and followers believed that this meant unlawful sexual acts. (Extreme Deuteronomists would not include adultery, as that would have been remedied by death, not divorce.) Hillel (Hellenist) and his folks contended that divorce could be granted for things such as failure to keep a good home or failure to bear children. The forbidding of a man to remarry a divorced first wife stems from the prohibition of marriage to a close kin. As one who is married is made one flesh, and made in the most intimate kind of relationship by God, to re-marry her would be to marry one who is already a close kin and therefore forbidden. The rabbinic teachings on divorce cover a wide and narrow ground. Malachi leaves little dispute starting in the 2 chapter verse 13 and peaking with, 16 “For I hate divorce, says the LORD,” last time I looked, it was in the Prophets, not NT. Jesus indicates in Matthew 19 that it was not until Mosaic law that divorces were granted, not from the beginning.
Your separation of Christian perspective on divorce as all embracing and evil is inaccurate. Jesus teaching on it (though sparse) is held up against this backdrop of rabbinic discussion, and the “one flesh” concept. Jesus teaching stands out for several reasons. The idea of a divorced person remarrying being an adulterer is based on the fact that if one is of one flesh with another how can it not be adultery to be with someone else? This teaching is probably derived from the Essenes at Qumron. (2nd century B.C.E. to 60-70 C.E. most certainly related to in some degree Helenization, or rather against it.) Jesus teaching also broadens adultery to include a mans behavior. (Very progressive.) (It also indicates that death is no longer the penalty by omission.) Though it does frame divorce as an evil in opposition to God’s reign. (God created it for good not evil.) Biblical teachings by Paul indicate that divorce was tolerated in the community of believers and in real life situations Paul shows that under certain circumstances Jesus prohibition was not binding, and even allowed for remarriage under certain circumstances. (Robert Wall also states Jesus ruled out serial monogamy, however that is a tough nut for this forum.) Within the Church today, we see as in the historic Jewish community a broad interpretation of what is valid for divorce. Certainly harmful situations would be legitimate to most in the community today. As marriage is primarily recognized as a legal entity sanctioned by the state, many of these points become mute.
I love the discussion of our faiths, thank you for your points. I wish we could put this question of notification in front of Christ like the folks of old… we would probably get an answer likened to the men wanting to stone the adulteress, “Let anyone among you who is without sin”… John 8:3. Blessings.
Gengwall: No, my point is that both person’s feelings matter.
No, that’s not your point. Your point is that nobody’s feelings matter.
If the woman wanted to tell her husband she was going to have an abortion, she would, whether or not the law required her to.
If the woman doesn’t want to tell her husband, the law violates her feelings and overrides them. You don’t care about her feelings: you think the law should outrage them in this way, with the following possible results:
If the man doesn’t give a damn about his wife, he won’t care that he only found out she was having an abortion because the law required that he had to be notified. Neutral, at best; possible disaster.
If he does care for his wife, finding out that she had an abortion and didn’t want to tell him is going to make him feel rotten. Bad, at best: possible disaster.
You are arguing for an abstract moral case – that the husband ought to be told . What you’re not arguing for is any consideration for anyone’s feelings, since such consideration would require leaving it up to the wife to decide whether or not she was going to tell her husband.
to ensure that the husbands legitimate interests (which I’m glad to see you recognize) are met
What are his legitimate, legally enforceable interests?
Rock,
You’re making what I find to be a typical error in thinking about Judaism among Christians, and cutting off Jewish legal history at the ankles–that is, around the time of Jesus of Nazereth. You’re correct to point out the differences between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, but you neglect the influence of Maimonides, Rashi, and other later commentators. It was actually through the codifications of the law and commentaries of the early medieval era in the Near East and Europe that Jewish law started to take its contemporary form. Looking just at the Mishnah and the scholars of that era gives you a very incomplete picture of Jewish legal thought.
Lilith,
It is a given that when reading NT scripture one is looking at it from many angles one of which is the time it was written. I thought I had bridged to these Post Modern times, but was possibly too brief. If I fail to indicate that time has changed things for our faiths that would be quite an omission. As a person split between historic exegesis and peering over the decaying Modern horizon I sometimes take a vantage that is not obscured, these tend to be looking forward or looking back. Where I was addressing the origins in the Biblical period I never intended to cut anyone off. I do in fact read commentary from Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Gittin, Ramban, Zevachim, etc. attempting to get the breadth of historic interpretation. There are those that cling to what is imagined as literalism and end up being legalism, not based on God’s Grace and Justice. The people of God find themselves in ever changing communities and the understanding of God has to keep up to remain relevant. Fundamentalism in faith is a reaction to the inability to maintain this understanding; our religion becomes a thing of condemnation not liberation.
My study of The Law is mostly limited to the Chumash and a few teachers other than how it relates to the Revelation in Christ. I am constantly amazed at the traditions and the origins of much of my faith and find the Law quite liberating. (Then again I am a Liberation Theologian.) Limiting commentary to the Mishnah (as even some Jews do), would be like generalizing all Christians to be Fundamentalist Evangelicals with the same viewpoint, who would be foolish enough to do that?
I would love to hear how changes in the law effect this discussion from your point of view. Blessings.
//Building on Roberts witness, and Sam The Girl’s excellent post,
It is Judeo/Christian (possibly Abrahamic) that a man and woman become one flesh when married, I believe this as well, and see it in the Spiritual aspect even more strongly. Christians are called to extend this in the edict to love our neighbors, the helpless and our enemies. Christ uses the allegory of God as the Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride for a reason. (Sadly this is frequently forgotten by the body which often prefers justice over Grace.) //
yeah, that’d be a great argument…IF I WERE A CHRISTIAN.
i don’t know how many times or how many different ways it can be said–STOP TRYING TO MAKE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO LAW. STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON’T SHARE THEM.
JUST STOP IT.
okay, before anyone else says anything, i apologize for losing my cool. it’s just…i…gah.
*is taking herself off to the Quiet Corner*
Beth,
Please forgive me if I somehow offended you.
I am not trying to make my religious beliefs into law, or force them on other people. My Faith informs me to seek compassion in what I do and believe, this is a position not limmited to Christians. It is through my Faith that I find that it would be wrong to legislate to force people to inform there spouse in abortion. I am perplexed by your frustration over my comments. If you never find Christ, that is your business. However many find the paths of Faiths leads to the same conclusions as those who are not believers, wishing to live free from judgment and harassment. Would you suggest that there is only one valid way to approach things? Does being a Christian reduce the weight of ones ideals? Are we worth less than those that are not? Is sharing our rational in this forum less welcome than some of the abusive speech and language that accompanies it?
I am not offended by your statement, just a bit… perplexed. Blessings.
Rock, perhaps Beth’s frustration is because in a discussion about the legalities of “Husband Notification” Robert and yourself introduced religion and God and Christian beliefs. None of which is pertinent to the discussion, or to the making of laws. The government isn’t supposed to decide things based on any religion. It’s lovely that you believe what you believe. I am very happy that you find comfort in it. But statements like “If you never find Christ, that is your business.” seem condescending. Speaking for myself, I agree with a great many of your posts, I nod and think ‘yes, that’s right’ as I read along. Then you bring in religion or start talking about gifts from God and blessings and Christ and no matter how much I agree with you I find myself rolling my eyes and muttering to myself about “religious” folk. I realize it is because you believe so strongly that you describe and relate everything in religious terms and ideas, but it can be frustrating for those of us who do not share your beliefs. I don’t feel the need to introduce my religious beliefs into discussions that are not about religion, so I don’t understand why you, and Robert, often feel the need to bring up the religion you believe in when it is not relevant to the discussion.
Mousehounde,
Thank you for your usual direct approach and clear questioning. I have to be honest, I do not understand how anyone can have a rational discussion concerning issues such as are found in this forum and not speak from the heart as to what brings one to their conclusions. Don’t you see that each and every one for me is the possessor of the gift of God’s very Spirit? That each person is the opportunity to reach and touch the very body of Christ, to share that first love? How can anyone who has experienced such love feel otherwise? What on earth does not fall under God’s domain for people such as me? In the Gospel of Thomas it says “snap the stick and Christ is there” (paraphrase). I would not want to try to look at forming a law without the scrutiny of the Holy Spirit; whom I often hear and experience from these very pages. The Government is supposed to be charged with the welfare of those that they represent, if they come to a conclusion that protects and shows compassion from a position influenced by their faith, what is wrong with that? As for notification, marriage for many is in fact a Spiritual union. This must be pertinent to the discussion if those who feel this way are to have a place in it. (The rational supported by faith though must not discriminate those who have a position based on other beliefs.) Do you think it is pleasant to read references to human life tossed around like baseball scores? Or to be lumped in with phobic extremists that care less about the person than a behavior they object too? I try and understand where these folks are coming from and open my heart and mind to their experience, it does not hurt one bit to disagree with a premise.
To be separated from God in any event for me would be to suffer a loss greater than my ability to share with you. I am absorbed with seeking God. (I did not intend to condescension, but assurance that conversion is not the goal, if it sounded otherwise it was not the point I wanted to make.) It is sometimes difficult to get along with those we do not understand; however isn’t that the point of who we are? Are we not trying to expand the circle to where we all have a place in the sun? (Not to mention security, healthcare, education, peace, human rights, freedom to believe as we choose, freedom to be ourselves?) If we cannot make it here on this little forum where we mostly are trying to grow a more compassionate community, how are we going to take it to the rest that have yet to catch on to what we are about?
I came to this blog because I felt I was becoming dogmatic and needed a kick in the pants, feel free to kick, but please don’t kick so hard I land somewhere else, I need you. Blessings.
Mousehounde, Beth, go read the title of the thread. What’s the thread about? It’s an inquiry into why so many people “out there” support a law that is so very very unpopular “in here”.
The reason for the disparity? A fundamental difference in belief between the people out there and the people in here (with a few exceptions). I explicated the difference. (Perhaps I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem like I’m being criticized for being wrong – rather, for discussing it at all.)
If seeing that difference expounded offends or discomforts you, then I certainly apologize for making you uncomfortable, but my comments were not off-topic or uninvited.
In addition, neither Rock nor myself has made any statement that even slightly goes to the concept of “making our beliefs law”. We have explained our beliefs; Rock, as usual, from an irritatingly more Christ-like spiritual point of view than my own very, very non-Christ-like perspective. We have not advocated for them to be imposed on the rest of you.
My apologies if the existence of these data points causes distress, but the data points exist nonetheless.
Rock: The Government is supposed to be charged with the welfare of those that they represent, if they come to a conclusion that protects and shows compassion from a position influenced by their faith, what is wrong with that?
If people elected to Government pass legislation that forces other people to act in accordance with the faith of those who are in Government, that’s wrong.
When people – whether Christian or not – speak as if everyone either shared their faith, or ought to, that’s rude.
Your faith is your own private affair, Rock: you have no business trying to superimpose it on other people.
“If people elected to Government pass legislation that forces other people to act in accordance with the faith of those who are in Government, that’s wrong.”
Couldn’t agree with you more; unless you are saying that legislating the right to choose and guaranteed healthcare for women with children from a Faith perspective is wrong compared to legislating the same thing from a Post Enlightenment Self Actualizing perspective.
“When people – whether Christian or not – speak as if everyone either shared their faith, or ought to, that’s rude.”
Did you REALLY mean that? I find that beneath you. I read your post number 43 and said, “wow, a bit blunt, but wow.” Why is it that the mostly Modern, Enlightenment based theology, is immune from that criticism? (Yes it is a theology. When ones god is rationalism, science, entitlement, stuff… it is the belief system that one chooses that becomes our Theology. For many mankind has become a god, gathering of posetions a form of worship. The Age of Reason is now being rejected by the Post Moderns. Perhaps in a few years the change in perspective will give folks a chance to see it truly has been their “religion.” However most will undoubtedly recede feeling scared and not understanding the changes around them, (Abbey Hoffman) the new fundamentalists of a belief system that no longer explains the mysteries of life and the universe to a new age of believers.) Why is it that your Faith and speech are protected and acceptable as fact, acceptable and understood, while it is rude to assume that others might be interested in the ethical process behind a different Theology?
Read your own words, “No, that’s not your point. Your point is that nobody’s feelings matter.” I happen to understand and respect your reasoning for this statement…. but, if it is under your standard for ethical evaluation, it is both condescending and rude.
“Your faith is your own private affair, Rock: you have no business trying to superimpose it on other people”
I agree with you. Please let me know when I do. Generally speaking, it is to the subject that I direct my reasoning and rational, which I have faith in based on my belief system which happens to be strongly Trinitarian. I would ask if you wish me to stop reasoning from positions of Faith derived ethics, that you do the same. Unless you are writing from another’s point of view you could not string two words together and have any integrity.
BTW, I loved your post 43. Blessings.
Robert, is irritating good or bad? :)
(Yes it is a theology. When ones god is rationalism, science, entitlement, stuff… it is the belief system that one chooses that becomes our Theology
No, it’s not a theology. I do not make a god of rationalism, science, entitlement, or “stuff”.
Why is it that your Faith and speech are protected and acceptable as fact, acceptable and understood
Facts are – or should be – always acceptable as facts. To equate the belief that it is possible to establish scientific facts with a belief in God, and claim that the two are just different religions with a different theology, shows a misunderstanding of both religion and science that literally takes my breath away.
“No, that’s not your point. Your point is that nobody’s feelings matter.” I happen to understand and respect your reasoning for this statement…. but, if it is under your standard for ethical evaluation, it is both condescending and rude.
You’re right, it was, both condescending and rude: but it was true. Gengwall was trying to argue that he wanted a law requiring “husband notification” out of nothing but concern for the husband’s feelings. I suppose I could have shown him exactly how wrong he was more politely than I did, but I do tend to get very impatient with people who come out with stuff that is really that stupid. (Also, it was so stupid I couldn’t really believe it was his honest opinion: could anyone really think that a husband would feel better knowing that his wife had had an abortion and hadn’t wanted to tell him?)
To be fair, Rock, Robert, no, I haven’t seen any sign of your proselytizing on this thread.
Rock: “Your faith is your own private affair, Rock: you have no business trying to superimpose it on other people”
I agree with you. Please let me know when I do.
When you oppose same-sex marriage, for one. Though let’s not get into that on this thread. (I assume that you and Rock over at Volokh are the same poster? If I’m wrong about this, I apologize.)
I am tempted to ask the almighty question, “What is truth?” But will refrain. I am trained in scientific methodology, diagnosis, and treatment. I understand the limits of both science and the value of it. However to believe that rationalism and science have not taken on the nature of religion for many people shows a decided lack of candor. Facts it has been proven are not enough to achieve ethical positions, sometimes compassion argues against the facts, yet it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately the entities that have traditionally given balance and meaning to the mysteries have fallen short and folks are looking to the Government and science to legislate what ought to be worked out togeather in our own communities.
I have seen too many people lost in addiction, abuse and spiritually dead freed from the imprisonment not from science but from something intangible and a little scary. I work on the chemistry and physiology from science, but rely on a divine Personhood to restore us to sanity. It would be easy to dismiss were it not so darned persistent in our experience.
We are not the same person; I have no problem with SSM. In fact I wholly support the extension of equal rights to SS partners, Civil Unions or otherwise. Neither do I have a problem with religious leaders who choose to or not to perform them.
As always, I look forward to your passionate postings. Blessings.
There is so much misinformation on Judaism here it makes me want to scream.
A man is permitted to re-marry a wife he divorced! The only exceptions are in the case of a Cohen, who cannot marry a woman that has been divorced, or when the woman has married someone else in the since the divorce (and that marriage is over, due either to death or divorce).
The status of women in ancient Israel is not so clear as implied by the statement “women were property.” The rights of a husband over his wife in the Bible are not exactly clear, and looking at rabbinic texts, it is clear that a wife is not simply property, and again, the exact rights are to some extent a subject of dispute, and there’s certainly nothing like equality, but the woman continues to have some rights as an individual after/in her marriage and upon leaving it, including property rights.
From the Bible, it isn’t at all clear that there need to be dire reasons for a man to divorce his wife. I would even go so far as to say that, at least in the Torah, there’s nothing whatsoever to indicate that. In rabbinic texts, there are also lists of times when a woman has a right to a divorce, or when she has reasonable grounds for it. It’s important to remember that in the Mishnah and Talmud, there isn’t usually a definitive voice/answer, but multiple individuals sharing inherited knowledge and arguments. Some are quite misogynist, others somewhat less so. But one of the grounds of valid reasons for a woman to seek a divorce is if her husband’s smell is unattractive for her, or if he isn’t giving her the conjugal attention to which she is entitled.
I’m so sick of these reductionist views of Judaism/Jewish history. The fact is that both the questions and the answers are complex, and should not be coopted for (Christian) polemical purposes!
Rock: However to believe that rationalism and science have not taken on the nature of religion for many people shows a decided lack of candor.
Some religious people certainly like to think that, I’ve noticed. They argue that people trust the scientific method without fully understanding it, and they equate a belief in scientifically-determined facts with a belief in faith-generated Truth. It is still a profound misunderstanding of both religion and science, but it is also based on a profound intellectual and spiritual arrogance: the people who hold this belief think they know better what another person believes than that person themselves.
We are not the same person; I have no problem with SSM.
I apologize. One reason why I picked “Jesurgislac” for an online handle was just so that I wouldn’t find myself being confused with anyone else online. It works: it’s even worth putting up with the persistent mispellings!
A marriage is a contract wherein both parties conceed certain sovereignty include bodily sovereignty for the mutual benefit of the union.
Not legally, no. It is unconstitutional for marital rape to be legal, or forced organ donation.
Jesurgislac,
No apology needed. I am glad you brought up your moniker though; I was going to broach the subject the next time I responded to you. What is the origin of it? I like it. I smile every time I sound out the phonemes. It sounds like one of the names we used to throw around back in college (the first time through) in a café or bar about people we were going to write about in a novel or to tag someone in the “dozens.” (That’s stretching the memory! Where did that creative force go?)
Sorry, I can’t let this comment go, I have to volley:
“It is still a profound misunderstanding of both religion and science, but it is also based on a profound intellectual and spiritual arrogance: the people who hold this belief think they know better what another person believes than that person themselves.” … is this a confession? If it is, I understand, I once felt the same way, but let me tell you what I found…
Bless you man!
There are references to religion in the following reply.
Linnet,
“A marriage is a contract wherein both parties concede certain sovereignty include bodily sovereignty for the mutual benefit of the union.”
Forgive me for trying to speak for Robert. (He does it much better than I ever could.) I do not think you are coming at this statement from where he is. In a belief system where one becomes “one flesh” in marriage, and the highest aim is to erode away the self, in fact the ideal is to sacrifice ones self to gain all things, (not of the world) then what his statement says is absolutely true, it cannot be otherwise (for people of his Faith). Mother Teresa has two small Poems that speak to this belief.
True love causes pain.
Jesus, in order to give us the proof of His love, died on the cross.
A mother, in order to give birth to her baby, has to suffer.
If you really love one another, you will not be able to avoid making sacrifices.
In Christ, who died on the cross for us,
we can definitely confirm the fact that suffering can transform itself into a great love and an extraordinary generosity.
The model of the relationship of humanity to Himself that Jesus uses is that the Church (us) is the bride, and He is the groom; If one believes this than the model of marriage is one of sacrifice and the giving away of ones self for the other. It sounds very contrary to what many feel is correct, however it was meant to sound difficult as it is. We are to give up holding on to things that really don’t matter, being right, my turf vs. your turf, “you do it!” And seek the eternal yes, of giving it away… when we do we find that place where greater love continues to well up, the kind that just overwhelms but leaves us whole. The kind that encourages us to give more and more until nothing is left but the love itself. This is the Kingdom of heaven. This is what I believe, and I believe Robert is suggesting. We are living sacrifices for the ones we love starting with our Creator and those we share this life with who are the very image of She who inspires us.
It is not about the Constitution or the legality of rape, it is about love. Blessings.
Rock: is this a confession?
No, it’s a statement of fact. When you claim that people feel about science as you feel about religion, that people are “making a religion of science” you are guilty of incredible arrogance: you are deciding what other people believe. (If you believe in science the way you believe in religion, that’s a statement you can make for yoruself.) And you don’t even appear to be aware of how arrogant this claim is – that you know better what other people believe than they know themselves .
Can you quit preaching sermons, by the way? “Jesus, in order to give us the proof of His love, died on the cross.”
No: there is a story – fiction, not historical – which Christians are required to believe, that their God was executed, and rose again on the third day. This is a myth which brings comfort to many people – that’s how myths come to be – and you are welcome to believe it if you like and if yoiu can. What you are not welcome to do* is preach a sermon to people who do not share your beliefs, claiming that this myth you believe in is a factual truth akin to the truth that salt is NaCl, or that 2+2=4, or Darwin’s theory of evolution.
*I should say that of course this is Amp’s blog, and if he feels you should be free to preach sermons in the comment threads, then that’s his decision. But your sermons, and your arrogant behavior, are patently unwelcome to many of the other commenters, including me. It’s rude and unfriendly to assume you can preach sermons at people in a public place without permission.
PS Jesurgislac: Je Surgis Lac, shortened usually to Jes: means I rise from the lake, in French, and is sort of an anagram of my real name with some lletters changed to make it interesting.
Jesurgislac,
“I rise from the lake,” a romantic and poet at heart. An image with universal mythological and metaphorical impact.
I find it stunning that you maintain that no people anywhere have ever treated faith in the ability of science (or inability at times) to solve our problems and answer our questions as kind of a religion. Commentators, philosophers, artists, poets and songwriters have been illustrating this phenomenon for years in castigating the sometimes dehumanizing and misapplication of knowledge derived from science and it’s brother technology as the end all for all of our problems and answer to all of our questions. Before you accuse anyone of arrogance, take a long look at what your assertion of what others are incapable of understanding says about the prejudices that are beholding in your statement. (Besides, I was conceding your point has validity, it was sarcasm “Is this a confession?” lighten up.)
As for sermonizing I do it often, I am a Pastor. The “sermon” (it is not) you object to is an explanation of a belief system and thought process that supports a conclusion about the status of marriage and the infinite possible responses therein. I could relate to other “Mythologies” based on Native American beliefs, or Buddhist beliefs that illustrate similar foundational truths in how to best deal with this relational issue of how we deal with ethical treatment of each other and maintain healthy community in situations of overlapping interests. Robert’s statement was based on a belief derived from a Mythology that was being interpreted as a legal statement. My explanation illustrates the development of the (for some counterintuitive) beliefs that lead some to conclude based on the life and sacrifice out of love for others we find our highest purpose and fulfillment. Given that marriage is as much about love as it is about material and financial agreements, love is material to the discussion. How does love tell us to treat others in a situation of consent and information? It is a difficult road as much of self interest is to be given to others in love under its law. (The golden rule.)
As for science sure NaCL is our description for salt. 1+1=2 (I have worked the “Proof that illustrates this, I believe it to be true… most of the time. I have also a proof illustrating it can equal three. Math Logic can give one quite a buzz.) Enriched Uranium when concentrated can give off lots of heat, which means we can create lots of cheap energy, great! (Remember the promise in the fifty’s?) Bomb’s for peace! Antibiotics and vaccines will rid the earth of disease! Computers will reduce the work week to 30 hours. Modern agriculture and genetics will end starvation by the millennium. War to end all wars. My entire family has graduate degrees in science. (My first love was math, physics and philosophy.) However having the knowledge of ending hunger is not the same as having the resolve to share resources and stop exploiting the poor for profit and selfish excess. Having the promise of energy is not the same as looking at what the toxins produced are going to do to our beloved and descendants and sacrificing convenience for the long view of humanity. Being able to save life has to be balanced with the ability to end life. It is cheapened daily and often little thought is given to the suffering that we cause by simple ignorance… that it is our responsibility to protect it. (Our Governments lack of support of the poor of the world is shameful. Our failure to defend the defenseless is inexcusable.) There are more laws on the books and more scientific proof that women are no less than men and I will by weeks end carry another battered head to the ER, and counsel another man guilty of domestic violence. (I just lost another, 14 months in a cage with 25 hours of therapy. JUSTICE! The science of incarceration. That will teach them! No it won’t, treat people like animals and you get worse.)
Our ability to survive and to find greater peace and prosperity is not going to come at a new law or a new invention or a new discovery, we have laws against drugs, and more folks use them every day. We have cages full of drug users and they continue to fill them as fast as they are built. We have regimens to change the chemistry of the mind and body yet folks continue to crave the thing that will kill them. And then we have love. If I had to choose of all the modalities as to what has the most power to correct many of our social ills it would be love, not science, not technology. It is the understanding that I am my brother’s keeper and can make a difference simply by loving those around me especially the unlovable.
Whether Jesus lived or is a Myth, makes little difference to me. Does His message resound with Truths that bring one to a greater experience of life and meaning? For many, no; misapplication and abuse are not reserved for science and technology. However, for the dogged and the Faithful, there is a narrow road that we seek to walk and that for many has made all the difference. Blessings.
Rock: I find it stunning that you maintain that no people anywhere have ever treated faith in the ability of science (or inability at times) to solve our problems and answer our questions as kind of a religion.
I find it stunningly arrogant that you think you can tell people what they believe, and am unsurprised that you are too arrogant even to recognise your arrogance.
The “sermon” (it is not) you object to is an explanation of a belief system
No. An explanation of a belief system is couched in terms such as “I believe that” or “Christians believe that”. A statement of what you believe, couched as if it were fact, is a sermon, and it’s not only I who objects to it, as you can see from comments on this thread.
OK. For discussions sake I will give you that I am the personification of arrogance squared, cubed if you like. I am the sum total of all navel contemplating, judgmental, holier than Mary, Peter and Paul people incapable of seeing past my own conceited nose… Having said that, Help me with what must be my one blind spot and tell me yes or no has there ever been a group or just a person that came to think in this time of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, (Heck they even brought us Methodism for goodness sake) of the scientific method and placed faith in it as a religious application in their lives? I have reread my posts and have yet to find the generality that I am accused of, that of extending all science to be a religion, or dictating that all people relying on science are of that particular mindset. (I do not believe either if that were the case.) So please help me, by telling me do you believe that no one has ever applied science as a religion yes or no in their lives?
Again if it were a Sermon, my Homiletics teachers would have failed me. It does not fit within the definition of a sermon. If it does than half of your discourses are as well. (Heaven forbid.) The statements you seem to object to, “I believe that” or “Christians believe that” are not couches, couching or any other bit of furniture but are qualifiers, as in “you may not feel this way but many of this ilk do.”
Don’t you have something else to get ticked off about? The “sermons” on entitlement that grace this site from time to time do not draw this kinds of attention from you, why the prejudice? I find much of what you comment on very informative, I think the things I find 180 degrees to my thinking from you as informative as well and let it find it’s place in my thoughts, why the angst?
It certainly is not worth it. It is fascinating that ideologies justifying what many folks find abhorrent readily grace this site in language I haven’t read in public sense my moms last note to me, yet speaking of the love that drives many peoples Faith and life sets you off. Perhaps Amp will do as you ask and put a stop to this. Perhaps you can provide a list of speech that you do not entertain and post it and all those who disagree will know not to share about that. It seems odd to celebrate our equality and efforts to a greater experience of freedom and restrict the ways that very freedom is expressed.
Blessings.
Rock: However to believe that rationalism and science have not taken on the nature of religion for many people shows a decided lack of candor.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. “Rationalism and Science” depend on facts, things that can be proven. Religion is based on believing in things that cannot be proved. How can “Rationalism and Science” be a religion?
Jes and Rock,
I generally like both of you as posters, but I think you have both flown off the rails here.
Scientifically determined facts get you a long way, but they don’t really get you all that far. There are no scientifically determined facts that show that murder should be a crime, much less that people who are starving should be fed. If you believe either of these things, you believe them for reasons other than parsimonious logic derived from scientifically determined facts. You may believe these things because your culture has taught them to you, because your religion demonstrates them to be true, because you believe them to simply be true, or because you derive them by reason from scientifically determined facts.
If you consider yourself to be someone who does the last (which I have no reason whatsoever to assume that you do), then you are someone who treats science and rationalism as a religion, as the foundation of your ethics, as a guide to how to think and act, as the thing that gives meaning to the universe for you (that’s how I define religion, and I think it is something close to what Rock means, since neither of you has actually stated what you mean by scientific rationalism being treated as a religion, I’m going to go with my own meaning).
Jes, there are people who do this. To some extent, I am one of them. To a greater extent, the former Alas poster DonP was one (tediously so). There are plenty of us. There are also lots of other kinds of godless secular religions out there, but scientific rationalism as a religion does exist.
There is, despite what you two seem to think, nothing wrong with using rationalism and science as your religion. Just as a religious text, weekly participation in religious ceremonies, or the most intense and elaborate ecstatic epiphany can not provide perfect moral guidance, but can only hint at it, so too scientific rationalism and humanism do not actually provide perfect moral guidance, but they are capable of hinting at it.
Just as there is a craven love of hierarchy and hatred of the Other in much modern Christianity, there is a love of selfishness and greed in much of modern Scientific Rationalism as a religion (the “Greed is Good” School). There are also the moral idiocies and “Just So” stories of the evolutionary psychology school. The moral hints that a religious text or a scientifically determined fact can point towards can just as easily lead in directions I don’t like as they can in directions that I do like. To me, this points towards the lack of a transcendent Moral Principle guiding the universe, but that is merely because that is the direction I choose to have it point me towards.
As an aside, up above, I mentioned “scientific rationalism and humanism.” I intend these as two different religions without deities, not as a combined thing; I have a devout secular humanist friend who joins Rock in railing fervently against those (like me) who find our religion in scientific rationalism (actually, I am a fairly weak agnostic scientific rationalist, but I will not flee from the label).
I really don’t see how you can either claim that there is no one who treats scientific rationalism as a religion (unless your definition of religion is very different from mine) or how you can claim that treating it in such a manner is wrong. Do you have a scientific proof of its wrongness (I have a friend who does. I snicker just to think of it)? Do you have a religious proof? Is it one that I, as a scientific rationalist religionist, would accept? Have you never met anyone who believes that all moral principles can be reliably derived from the basics of physics and biology? Dogmatic scientific rationalist religionists may be laughable, but not any more than the dogmatists of any other religion (and that is a may, I am unconvinced that any sort of dogmatist is truly laughable).
Just my thoughts on the matter.
mousehounde,
Science and rationalism can guide your belief in places where no proof is possible. Should the hungry of the world be fed? There are rationalist arguments that they should, even though there can be no proof of the answer. Scientific facts, theories and methods can be used as mirrors, as metaphors, as myths, just as effectively as religious texts or traditional mystical experiences can be.
Likewise, scientific theories can provide the comfort of giving the world meaning, of reassuring us that we live in world that makes sense, just as surely as a religious text or a spiritual master can. This sensation is religious, it cannot be proven, and it is part of the religion of scientific rationalism (as I experience it anyway). I suspect that the phylotactic profundities of plants inspire me as deeply as a bible passage inspires Rock. Perhaps they inspire Rock as well.
Rock: For discussions sake I will give you that I am the personification of arrogance squared, cubed if you like. I am the sum total of all navel contemplating, judgmental, holier than Mary, Peter and Paul people incapable of seeing past my own conceited nose…
Oh, for heaven’s sake. I am not asking you to accept “for discussion’s sake” that you are arrogant: I am asking you (if it wasn’t clear) to look at your arrogant way of behaving and change your behavior. Arrogant people, who think that their behavior is impeccable no matter how annoying it is to others, are no fun to be around. Be less arrogant, don’t waste time with fulsome and hypocritical apologies and then continue with the same behavior as before.
Thank you, Charles.
I see now where I got confused. I think of religion as belief in the mystical or supernatural. I went googling after reading your posts. I am still just as confused, but I see that anything one believes can be called “religion”. Even not believing in anything can be “religion”. As near as I could tell, “religion” is each individuals view of the world and how they act according to that view. It seems like there should be another word besides “religion” that one could use. “Religion”, for me at least, has a lot of bad baggage with it. I went looking at categories, to see if there was a religious thread that could be used so as to not hijack the current thread. Since I didn’t see one, I will refrain from commenting on religious stuff further.
I enjoyed your posts, Charles. I love comments that make me go look up things.
mousehounde: I think of religion as belief in the mystical or supernatural. I went googling after reading your posts. I am still just as confused, but I see that anything one believes can be called “religion”.
Metaphorically, yes, I suppose one could.
But to insist that a belief in anything – from the law of thermodynamics to the rules of algebra – can be called “religious belief” is a ridiculous blurring of the lines. The primary – default – meaning of religion is “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” or “A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.”
Science is not a “supernatural power or powers”: nor is science regarded as “creator and governor of the universe”.
Mousehounde,
I think this thread has safely and smoothly drifted into a discussion of religion (there hasn’t been a comment directly on the original topic for a couple of days), so please feel free to participate. I am not the threads author, but I feel I know Amp fairly well (after 17 years, I certainly should), and I don’t think he will have any objections.
Jes,
I agree that calling a belief that thermodynamics works religion would be a stupid (and probably dishonest) blurring of the lines. I don’t think that that was what Rock intended (indeed, he acknowledged the effectiveness and reliability of scientific methods at gaining knowledge of how the physical world works, but doubted that it provided any aid in figuring out how to use that knowledge for the best purposes, since the moral sense of best is not a scientifically determinable goal). However, there are other ways of believing in science than that. One can believe that scientific knowledge provides a reliable underpinning for ones morality. One can believe that scientific knowledge gives meaning and awesome splendor to the Universe (and even that it explains the origins of the universe, making the creator and governor of the universe the subject of scientific knowledge). This belief about scientific knowledge is not scientific, it is instead something very similar to religious belief: unverifiable except by personal experience, providing moral guidance and meaning, giving answers to the unanswerable questions (“What is Truth?” “Why?”), underpinning mystical epiphanies, and providing comfort and solace in difficulty.
Even if it was the narrower definition you gave was the definition Rock intended, a belief that Science Will Explain Everything And Save The World comes very close to reverence for a supernatural power. I would distinguish Science Will Explain Everything And Save The World (henceforth SWEEASTW) to a belief that scientific methods are very productive for explaining things, and that scientific theories explain a lot of things currently and can be expanded to explain a lot more things. The later can combine comfortable with a religion, the former has a much harder time. To borrow a phrase from SJ Gould and from the Catholic Church, SWEEASTW and religion in the narrow sense are overlapping magisteria, while a belief in science in the narrow sense and religion in the narrow sense are not competing magisteria. SWEEASTW and mystical scientism expand into the religious realm in much the same way that Creationism and Heliocentrism expand into the scientific realm.
The difference (and it is a huge one) is that the scientific realm is a realm of disprovability and testability, so heliocentrism and creationism are wrong as science in a way that SWEEASTW and mystical scientism are not wrong as religions. The tests of religious validity are very different, and almost entirely concerned with “Do people believe it? Do they find it useful to continue believing it? To they find it worth teaching to their children or to converts?” Beyond that, you can ask, “Do I like it? Does it work for me? Do I think that people who believe those things should be prevented from influencing public policy?” However, you can’t really ask, “Is it false?” and get a meaningful answer.
Rock,
Whether SWEEASTW or my mystical scientism are bad things, or whether they are merely another form of religious belief, as capable of all the glories and debacles as any other religion, is my bone to pick with Rock. I am reminded of a newly converted ex-Christian pagan who believes that all mythologies hold power and beauty, except Christianity, which is a crappy death cult of no value.
it sounds like you are a convert away from either SWEEASTW or mystical scientism yourself and are bitter toward your old religion for failing you. Just because it failed you does not mean it inherently fails everyone. Another religion serves you better, while leaving some of us completely cold. I don’t ask you not to talk about your religion (although plenty of others here have), but I am going to profoundly disagree when you feel the need to smack my religion.
I’ll agree that there are uses and forms of my religion that do evil, just as you will undoubtedly agree that there are uses and forms of your religion that do evil. We both hope that our own interpretation is not one of those, but so does virtually every person whose religious practice is such that the two of us would agree that it leads them to evil.
One can believe that scientific knowledge gives meaning and awesome splendor to the Universe
Indeed. My appreciation of a beautiful sunset was only increased by my understanding of why the sky looks the way it does to me: my aesthetic appreciation of the glorious colours is enhanced by knowing that I see them like that because the atmosphere is the thickness it is, and the wavelength of the sunlight is what it is, and my eyes evolved to perceive light the way they do (I could go into figures, but hey, why should I spoil anyone else’s fun? look them up!) and that’s why I see a beautiful sunset. Cool!
My appreciation of watching seagulls fly is enhanced by my knowledge of aerodynamics: my pleasure in the moment of take-off when an aeroplane’s wheels leave the runway is enhanced by my knowledge of how an aeroplane’s wings use airflow over their surfaces to make this multiton shape of steel take the air. I even enjoy making bread more, the more I learn about how yeast grows.
This belief about scientific knowledge is not scientific, it is instead something very similar to religious belief
No, it’s really not. Well, it may be for you: you may look at sunsets and enjoy that you know why you see them as well as enjoying that they are beautiful, and this may be similiar to the way you experience your religious belief. I don’t want to argue you out of your own experience: you know best how you experience sunsets, faith in God, or scientific knowledge. But I can tell you that how I experience sunsets and scientific knowledge bears absolutely no resemblance to religious belief: and you ought to be able to tell yourself that it’s arrogant of you to assume that because you conflate the one experience with the other, that everyone else does too.
a belief that Science Will Explain Everything And Save The World comes very close to reverence for a supernatural power
Depends. I believe that ultimately, there is nothing that the scientific method cannot establish to be true or false if it is in the realm of reality (the realm of imagination is another matter: the scientific method cannot establish whether or not God exists, since God is a matter of the imagination rather than of the real world) – that’s what the scientific method does. And I believe that people do their best work to save our world as one habitable for human beings (not to mention platypuses, whales, oaks, and orchids) when we are well informed about the real world. That latter belief is based on the fact that ignorant people will assume things like “there will always be more cod” when in fact we were outfishing the cod’s ability to breed: or “it doesn’t matter how many lethal chemicals you pour into the ocean, it’s big enough to swallow them all and not notice”. Etc.
But these beliefs are not of the same order of belief as “reverence for a supernatural power”. I suppose my belief that people are sensible enough not to cut off the branch they are sitting on if they can see that they’re doing just that and if sensible alternatives are provided could be equated with “reverence for a supernatural power” – alternatively, it could just be my method of making myself get up in the morning!
it sounds like you are a convert away from either SWEEASTW or mystical scientism yourself and are bitter toward your old religion for failing you.
You couldn’t be more wrong! And your assumption that because I don’t agree with you I must be a bitter convert is as arrogant as Rock’s assumption that he gets to preach us all sermons.
it sounds like you are a convert away from either SWEEASTW or mystical scientism yourself and are bitter toward your old religion for failing you.
Eek! My mis-reading – I thought that was a comment to me, not to Rock. Apologies.
Charles, awesome posts, dude.
Jes,
I totally agree that it is possible to have a deep belief in the efficacy of science without it being your religion. I absolutely trust you that it is the case. I get the impression that Rock also has a pretty high belief in the efficacy of science, and it is pretty clear it isn’t his religion.
Rock said that science was some people’s religion. You disagreed that anyone used it like that. I do (to some extent). I know others who do as well.
I think you took Rock to mean that anyone who has a deep belief in the efficacy of science who is an agnostic or an atheist is treating science as their religion. I have no clue if that is what he meant. If it is what he meant, then I completely agree that he is wrong. A deep belief in the efficacy of science can combine just fine with a profound belief in a theistic religion, so it seems unlikely that the one is taking the place of the other.
Lee,
thanks!
Charles,
I also compliment your excellent posts.
I have absolutely no judgment on the choice of anyone’s belief system. (Unless it harms others.) I have absolutely no problem with Scientific Rationalism, Humanism, The Scientific Method, Atheism, or any more isms out there. The Issue for me is that I expressed an explanation of an ethic stated by Robert that is Biblically derived. In order to explain the roots of the belief system it was necessary to give the foundational process theology to arrive at that premise or conclusion. Jes attacked on the grounds that it was a Sermon, preaching, and Religious. The entire foundation to my response to him is that there are many arguments that are made for things including scientific that are for some “Religious.” If that is true why is it an explanation of a person’s ethic, (based on Christian beliefs) is any less appropriate than another’s potentially religious beliefs? Especially when I have never stated that any of the belief systems in question are less valid, or negated any of them in any way. (I also placed a sentence at the very beginning indicating the content of the post.) Each system has its place and each system has its limits, none need be mutually exclusive though. (As far as the ones we have been talking about, it is possible that some folks belief may be exclusive.)
I love science. I have received over the years at least 6 different science journals on a subscription basis. (From Nature, to Science/AAAS, My mother and brother have been published in several.) I too find the scientific observations of Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Education, Physics, Behavior, etc. awesome in all the myriad dimensions. I take kids on field trips to map faults, hunt fossils, look through my 12.5″ scope, or do some pretty amazing math proofs that just wogle their little minds. (I also am working on a treatment for mitigating Turrets syndrome symptoms by changing brain wave patterns using changing frequencies of light delivered by photo-optic cables through eye glasses; it may work for stuttering too. This is using science not prayer, though I do pray as well for inspiration.) Science is a wonderful way of explaining and quantifying our universe.
To address mousehounds question, science, rational or otherwise is based on “Facts.” Facts are frequently temporary or are wrong. Lets base our decisions today on the scientific facts about women at the turn of the previous century. Do you know the origin of the term Hysterectomy? It is Hysteria. Remove the ovaries and the womb and remove the behavior…. (it is enough to make one sick.) Oh but we are so much better now! Yes and no. In the 70s the big question was not global warming but the next mini-ice age. Behavioral science… do we even need to go there? Gay gene? Alcoholism as a disease is a new definition. (over 100 years ago the founder of The Salvation Army defined it as such, a Pastor.) Criminal Justice? Racial Profiling? Genome work is turning many previously held “Facts” upside down. (If I had to do it over I would have done the Micro Bio thing, what a great time to be a Biologist!) However, all the best discoveries and wholly true facts still in and of themselves do not tell us always what to do with that knowledge. That takes the application of other truths. (As Charles pointed out so well.) I do not see why we have to limit the sources for the discussion of those truths to what seem at times to be arbitrary definitions.
A belief system of love and sacrifice superimposed on all this knowledge does not seem to me to be such a bad thing. Though, many claiming this kind of faith have caused great harm; the systems of the state as the source for brotherhood have done terribly poorly at applying positive use of the facts as well. We just might have to say that people can be very harmful when they want to be if they ignore the “Facts.” I got no problem with your religion, or lack of it. Just do it well and do no harm. Blessings.
Rock,
I think I over read somewhat, but the quotes of yours below are what gave me the impression that you were speaking ill of the atheistic religions.
I think I read this as “to claim… shows a lack of candor,” suggesting duplicity on the part of those who do not consider their belief in science and reason to be religious.
This read to me as the equation of humanism to making base and greedy materialism ones God. I suppose you merely meant this as two very different ways that science and rationalism can be made into gods, but it does not read that way at all to me.
Here, I misread the “Unfortunately” as presaging the making of science and rationalism into a religion. That isn’t actually what you were doing, but what you were saying doesn’t make much sense to me as connecting to the question at hand.
How does science legislate?
Is it really only the secular religious who have turned to the government to oversee the structure of society?
What are “the entities that have traditionally given balance and meaning to the mysteries” if not the theistic religions?
So I have a hard time not reading this as: “Unfortunately, the Church has lost power in the world, and so people have rejected theistic religion, turning instead to selfishness (the gathering up of possessions), and have substituted science and government for communality and love.” And I have a hard time not taking that as a slap on the atheistic religions.
From your most recent post:
I actually agree with all this, but I have a hard time not reading it as saying that a belief system of love and sacrifice must be theistic, and that the atheistic religions instead believe in the state as the source of brotherhood. In fact, of course, Soviet communism (as an example) was both a system of love and sacrifice, and a system in which the state was the source of all brotherhood, and atheistic, and caused great harm.
I think that I am misreading you, but I think that you have left yourself somewhat open to misreading.
On the other hand, the provocation of being told to shut the hell up about your beliefs, that talking about them at all was like proselytizing, being lumped with Christians of the Fred Phelps variety, etc would be enough to send anyone (even you) a little off kilter.
I, for one, greatly enjoy your religiously based posts.
Likewise!
On the other hand, the provocation of being told to shut the hell up about your beliefs, that talking about them at all was like proselytizing, being lumped with Christians of the Fred Phelps variety, etc would be enough to send anyone (even you) a little off kilter.
Actually, it started out with Rock being ticked off (correctly) for trying to claim Judaism as a part of Christianity, and maintaining (with vast incorrectness) that divorce is antithetical to Judaism. An appropriate response from Rock at that point would have been “Did I get that wrong? Sorry, I don’t know anything about Judaism.”
His comment to Beth: “I am perplexed by your frustration over my comments. If you never find Christ, that is your business.” was about as offensive and patronising as anything else he’s written.
Actually, Beth’s STFUAYGDC post was not in response to Rock doing the Judeo-Christian agglomeration thing (Lilith objected to that, but not Beth). And Tara’s statement of disgust with the amount of disinformation about Judaism came later, and was at least as much a response to Alon Levy’s single post claiming that wives are property in Judaism as it was to Rock’s posts.
Also, while the Judeo-Christian agglomeration thing is frequently a bunch of garbage (when it attempts to make Christianity speak for Judaism, e.g. “Judeo-Christian thought abhors homosexuality,” when the (by far) largest movement of US Judaism does no such thing, or when it treats Judaism as being anything like Christianity, or when it somehow treats Orthodox Judaism as being more like Christianity, and therefore a real religion, unlike Reform), it is the case that Christianity has its roots in Judaism, and that one of the main sacred texts of Christianity is also one of the main sacred texts of Judaism, and that Christian interpretation of that text splits from Jewish interpretation of that text around the time of the Diaspora. Therefore, when Rock was talking about the origins of Christian views of marriage, it is understandable that he would talk about his understanding of pre-Diaspora Jewish views of marriage. Whether his views are accurate, whether his summation of his views was incomplete, I do not feel qualified to say, but I did not come away from that exchange feeling that he had shown himself to be an ignoramus on the subject, nor do I see any sign that he was beginning to get his back up during that exchange.
The “If you never find Christ, that is your business” comment was kind of weird and off-putting for me too, but I found his further explanation of what he meant by that to bring it down well below the level of extraordinarily patronizing and offensive. It may well be the most patronizing and offensive thing he has written, but I don’t actually think it was the most patronizing and offensive thing anyone has written on this thread (I’m not actually going to go back and hunt for a worse statement, though!), and it was so far from the most patronizing or offensive thing written on this blog in the past 2 days by a regular poster that, well, its unsurprising that the flame war over on the other thread is much much bigger (while still actually very civil).
Anyway, I don’t think that hashing out how this thread turned into a very gentle flame war is worth many more pixels than we’ve given it. I’m not trying to get in the last word and then say “lets stop talking about this,” but it does seem to me its not that big a deal.
I’m not trying to get in the last word and then say “lets stop talking about this,” but it does seem to me its not that big a deal.
Not much, no. On reflection, one thing that continuously irritates me about Rock’s comments is that they’re very long and have no paragraph breaks. I might find him less irritating if he edited (and certainly if he broke them into shorter paragraphs).
Ah, the perils of long paragraphs in internet discussions!
Shorter is better! :-)
Shorter is better! :-)
I was always told that size didn’t matter. ;)
“Is it really only the secular religious who have turned to the government to oversee the structure of society?”
Absolutely not. The desire of theists to have the Gov. legislate positions openly based on religious beliefs, i.e. prayer in public schools etc. shows for me a failing within that institution as well. (If the theists acted and treated folks as the doctrines of the faiths claim, much of the issues with poverty and loneliness would be gone.)
“So I have a hard time not reading this as: “Unfortunately, the Church has lost power in the world, and so people have rejected theistic religion, turning instead to selfishness (the gathering up of possessions), and have substituted science and government for communality and love.” And I have a hard time not taking that as a slap on the atheistic religions.”
Fair enough. That was not my overt intent, but having stepped away and read it again, I can come to the same conclusion. It may indicate a prejudice in me that bares examination, however my thoughts are, I feel it is a failure of there being few relevant metaphors, or stories as Joe Campbell used to say that can connect the humanity to the mystery around us. (I am a big Stanley Kubrick fan, I think much of his work addresses this.) Whatever it is that we put our faith in; things are changing so fast the fabric is being stretched and torn.
“I am perplexed by your frustration over my comments. If you never find Christ, that is your business.”
I see what you mean by this comment. There is no way you could know what was going on in my head, I meant to indicate that I was in no way interested in converting or proselytizing with my comments. I could have phrased it better. “Whatever path you choose that is your business,” Would have conveyed the sentiment. It is difficult to discern when one is deep in their head.
As for the wandering and wordiness. (Jes, I just seem to tick you off all over.) I do ask a little indulgence though, and please do not hit me on this, it is too close. I went away from the blog (and everything) for a short time recently. I get to deal with depression that seems to get worse every winter when it really sets in. The treatment now affects my memory and my ability to hold thoughts. I get very convoluted and forming sentences without forgetting my next thought is a real struggle at times. (I have gone back to writing manuscripts for Chapel, I cannot remember even with an outline.) If I do not treat it though, I am afraid that I may not be able to continue with the weight of darkness in my mind and soul. There is so much to do and so many things that I would like to see happen that are changing. The effort to write these notes and see others respond like Mousehound, Britgirl, Robert, Jes, Charles and all is somehow therapeutic. It is a community that cares enough to take the time to fight for others and that is something missing in much of our experience and something that seems to depress me more than anything. (The fact that it is missing) People treat each other with so little care, violence, and ignorance of the weak and the poor become overwhelming at times and knowing I really am not alone in this concern helps. (My mind tells me otherwise, I know it is wrong but the feelings are so horrendous, they are hard to push aside.) I truly apologize for not being more erudite. I used to be sharper and more to the point, everything takes longer now. That is why I love to read your thoughts, you all say them so well, even mine. I live at times cheering others words that I simply feel. Thank you for listening. Blessings.
mousehounde Writes: I was always told that size didn’t matter. ;)
:-D Omit needless words.
Rock: I get to deal with depression that seems to get worse every winter when it really sets in.
I’m sorry to hear that, Rock. I hate the long dark nights myself, and the short days, and the foul weather – I wish I could hibernate, some years! Thanks for your comment – and thank you for the paragraph breaks!
No sleep no serotonin, no serotonin no sleep. (A little more complicated.)
What I wouldn’t give for a few drops of the “Feel Good” transmitter serotonin!
My Healthcare folks tell me it is the bane of the Creative, it is some consolation.
Exercise helps; a 20 mile bike ride on the coast is “Treatment” in itself. I hope for you a short, bright, winter. Blessings.
Jesurgislac,
Don’t you think it hypocritical to tell Rock what constitutes a religious belief, and then blast him for telling you what constitutes a religious belief? What you described about the way you feel about science, and how it changes the way you look at a bird in flight, or a sunset, etc, sounds a lot to me like a religious attitude. Why is it OK for you to tell everybody that the way you think about science is NOT the way they think about religion, but so annoying when they tell you that the way you think about science MAY be the way they think about religion?
Next time you get mad about people telling other people what to think, don’t do it yourself.
Hi JayQ. Stirring much?