I am continually amazed by the strenuous mental gymnastics most folks go through in order to answer the question, "Where is God in all this human suffering?"
Most attempts to answer this end up in an illogical jumble that allows that God does things we can't understand--for example, causes earthquakes or allows earthquakes--but He is loving, and therefore He acts in our best interests, either to make us repent or to test our faith.
One subset of this skirts the issue altogether, and answers the question, "Where is God?" with the answer, "God is suffering alongside us." This clever sleight of hand is meant to turn us away from these speculations and toward the wellspring of God's love that is in our hearts, either to find comfort in that love and/or to act from that love to aid and comfort others.
From a practical perspective, this maneuver is laudable. It gets us off our butts and engaged with others. For many people, in fact, this perspective is proof of God's existence. They have come into direct contact with this wellspring of love in the context of their "personal relationship with God" and they point to it as one of the sterling justifications for religion: "Even though religion can wreck great harm, it can also bring great good," they argue, as evidenced by this divine love in action.
I have to ask: Why?
You see, I am no longer a believing Christian, but this love still dwells within me. It moves me when I see suffering, whether among humans or animals. It touches my heart with the desire to help and to comfort. But I do not believe in God.
What would happen if people could separate their experience of "divine love" from their twisted and illogical belief in God? Wouldn't they come to understand that this love is not a special, secret gift from their personal God but, rather, the inheritance of all humans? It would be very powerful if people could look those around them and realize, "This love lives in every person's heart!" Then perhaps they would become more focused on inspiring and drawing out that love, rather than in isolating those who are different from them, especially as regards faith and religion.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Supreme Court Gags Prop. 8 Trial
I'll keep this short.
The Supreme Court has just ruled barring video recording of the landmark federal case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. The reasoning was that televising the proceedings would cause witnesses for the defense -- that is, opponents of same-sex marriage -- to change their testimony because they fear for their lives. The ban on televising the proceedings was accomplished by the Court's rock-hard conservative quartet -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas -- joined by that perennial will'o the wisp, Kennedy.
This case will, in all likelihood, reach the Supreme Court within the next 18 months. Barring some unforeseen (but very welcome) event (such as God striking down one of the FAB Four justices), it will be heard by these same justices.
I have absolutely no doubt that they will issue an over-reaching opinion that goes far beyond the issues in the current federal case. Rather than a strict Constructionist argument, which would simply say that the Founders were mute on the issue of same-sex marriage, and that marriage law has traditionally been in the purview of the states, they will create a nauseating pastiche of twisted illogic that not only robs states of that right, but firmly forbids the federal government from legalizing such unions. They will, in effect, do precisely what conservatives piss and moan about: They will be "activist judges making law from the bench."
Marriage equality advocates will, of course, then launch repeated legal challenges to overturn Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Conservatives will again piss and moan that "it's settled law," completely ignoring their own ardent attempts to overturn "Roe v. Wade."
The ultimate irony is that, when Perry v. Schwarzenegger is finally decided by the High Court, it will be the plantiffs who fear for their lives.
The Supreme Court has just ruled barring video recording of the landmark federal case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. The reasoning was that televising the proceedings would cause witnesses for the defense -- that is, opponents of same-sex marriage -- to change their testimony because they fear for their lives. The ban on televising the proceedings was accomplished by the Court's rock-hard conservative quartet -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas -- joined by that perennial will'o the wisp, Kennedy.
This case will, in all likelihood, reach the Supreme Court within the next 18 months. Barring some unforeseen (but very welcome) event (such as God striking down one of the FAB Four justices), it will be heard by these same justices.
I have absolutely no doubt that they will issue an over-reaching opinion that goes far beyond the issues in the current federal case. Rather than a strict Constructionist argument, which would simply say that the Founders were mute on the issue of same-sex marriage, and that marriage law has traditionally been in the purview of the states, they will create a nauseating pastiche of twisted illogic that not only robs states of that right, but firmly forbids the federal government from legalizing such unions. They will, in effect, do precisely what conservatives piss and moan about: They will be "activist judges making law from the bench."
Marriage equality advocates will, of course, then launch repeated legal challenges to overturn Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Conservatives will again piss and moan that "it's settled law," completely ignoring their own ardent attempts to overturn "Roe v. Wade."
The ultimate irony is that, when Perry v. Schwarzenegger is finally decided by the High Court, it will be the plantiffs who fear for their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
