Despite all the crying wolf (and deer and bird and caterpillar), I can at least see where the Religious Right are coming from this time. Secretary Sebelius of the Department of Health & Human Resources has clarified that all employers receiving federal money must comply with the mandate in a duly passed law that employees be provided with insurance that covers women’s health services and products, including birth control pills. Contraception control of any kind is prohibited by the Catholic Church, so naturally they are claiming discrimination.  There is an exception carved out for strictly religious organizations, such as individual churches, but not to large institutions like hospitals and colleges, both of which benefit substantially from federal money in the form of Medicare or Student Loans and grants.

When an organization has long gotten its way, it is understandable that it will feel slighted when asked to change. In response to the requirement, Catholic Church officials essentially making two arguments: First, they are claiming that this has never been the case in the past. Second and more interestingly, they are claiming that this is not only discrimination, but a violation of the First Amendment to the (U.S.) Constitution. The first point is easily dismissed. Argumentum ad antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition) is a logical fallacy. Defending a policy simply because it has always been the policy is a logical fallacy. Despite the sentimental appeal of such arguments, they are not a reasonable justification for passing laws or ignoring mandates. The second, I think, derives from a misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Anyone with strong religious convictions likes to think that the First Amendment is primarily about free speech and freedom to practice religion. And most of us are grateful for that part. There is simply nothing quite like the U.S. protection of speech and religion anywhere else in the world. A person really can say almost anything, no matter how vile, discriminatory, critical, or just plain weird through any number of media and be protected on the federal level. Persons can also practice any religion, whether it be one of the “big five” of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism, or one for a few or one practitioners, or, my favorite, no religion at all. Simply put, the government cannot prevent anyone from practicing his or her own religion. This is the argument on which the Catholic position lies.

But there is another part of the Amendment; one that prohibits establishment of a state religion, which has been determined to also extend to favoring one religion or another. This is the part where the Catholic argument fails. Indeed, the government cannot prevent anyone from going to Mass, praying the Rosary, writing religious songs, or even attempting to convert others. The government also must allow Muslims to build mosques and pray as freely as Christians do, and accommodate religious attire to the maximum extent possible. Sometimes this goes so far as to allowing Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers into places where weapons would otherwise be prohibited.

These actions all have something in common—they are positive expresses of faith, by individuals or groups. The protections of religious actions follow necessarily from the freedom of speech. However, a religious policy designed to prevent legal behavior or established rights for religious and only religious reasons, cannot be protected without running afoul of the First Amendment. Catholic Hospitals and Universities employ people of all faiths and genders—people who are guaranteed to have the same options for healthcare as anyone else. The argument against the Administration is legally and logically backwards. Discrimination lies in telling non-Catholics that they must give up rights that the Church does not acknowledge. One cannot expect to use taxpayer money to pay the bills on one hand while working against the larger citizenry on the other.

I think the Administration has a winning argument based on a whole, rather than selective reading of the Constitution. That does not mean it has a winning political argument. Already, there is talk of finding a compromise or amending the policy so as not to offend conservatives. It is an election year after all.

What do you think? Who is discriminating against whom here? Does the Catholic Church have a winning argument from a Constitutional, rather than political point of view? Should the President stick by a sound policy or would it be better to simply pick another hill to die on?

Alas, truths that seem self-evident at one point seem unthinkable at another, even in one’s own lifetime. Sixteen years ago, I was on the wrong side of history. When the day came to show support (or at least a passive lack of contempt) bisexual, gay, and lesbian students by wearing blue jeans, I went out of my way to wear something else. I could have simply worn Dockers or slacks, but those may have been mistaken for work clothes. Here I was, coming off a year of indoctrination at a Fundamentalist Bible College, full of ignorance and pride, burning with a desire to nip this “pride” in the bud. I needed to show my classmates where I really stood What would happen if people did accept “them” as normal? People had to know the truth. Civilization depended on it. If they won, “good,” whatever that was, will have lost. So I chose to clothe myself in camouflage over a handmade “Sodomy is Sin” T-Shirt. That would show them. Surely all would see who had the plain, “loving” Truth on his side against those who “hated” society.

That stunt cost me some friends. It cost me respect. I’m lucky it didn’t cost me my relationship with the love of my life. I deserved derision, yet I was the one handing it out on people whose only goal was acceptance. It was quite possibly the worst, most hateful thing I have done.

So this week, I’m here to say to anyone who might have seen me that day, I was wrong. Not just for acting out, but for even considering that other students were somehow less deserving than I was because I like to look at women instead of men.

I was wrong. I will not pretend that I kind find some metaphysical solace through penance, prayer or forgiveness. That is not the way I want to be remembered. Yet, for some, it will be. I like to hope that those who did see me that day have simply forgotten by now. But I know they haven’t. They couldn’t? If I was not the worst thing that happened to them, I should have been.

I was not merely misguided. I was wrong. I cannot have that day back, but I can do my best to be an ally to those who want to love and share, and an example to those who would rather hate and hide. To my bisexual, gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, I hope that you will accept the companionship of one so undeserving as I.

To those who supported my actions that day sixteen years ago, if you still feel that way, please consider applying the Golden Role to this situation. Do you really want other people deciding whether or not you can get married and to whom? Do you want someone to find it “gross” for you to hold your spouse’s hand, or for their first thoughts when meeting you to involve your actions in the bedroom instead of the community? If the answer is “no” to any of these, then please, do what you know is right, not what you think might be. Future You will thank Present You for the peace of mind.

It has been a year since my last post, so it seems that it may be better to simply start over than to attempt any semblance of continuity. Long time readers may remember when this site went by the title of Elwood’s  Nerjal. I don’t go by Elwood much these days and my attempts to rid the world of the term “blog” (which still sounds like throwing up to me, ballooooogah!) and replace it with something fun like “Nerjal”  have failed. I blame Canada. They could have used their powers to make Internet Journaling more pleasant, but they chose to beat us in hockey in the Olympics instead. And we are all worse off for it.

So for anybody who cares, let’s get a few questions out of the way:

Q: What’s with the name change and what does it mean?

A: Elwood is still my online handle in a number of places, but fewer and fewer know me as Elwood in real life so it is probably less confusing just to drop it. Since I am now “out” as an atheist, and we have such a hard time finding one another, I figure I might as well just put it in the title. The “token” portion comes from feeling like the only one in a sea of Christians so much of the time.

Q: Where have you been?

A: In school. I decided that I really needed to finish college but then found that doing so would require working full time at night while attending classes full time during the day year round, not to mention assignments, studying and, very occasionally, some sleep.  Pretty much every form of recreation had to fall by the wayside under those circumstances, but I did graduate and was rewarded with a new job, and something resembling normalcy.

Q: Atheist? When, why and how did that happen?

A: I will get into that more in a later post.

Q: Will you be all preachy about it?

A: The depends on your definition of “preachy.”  Atheism will no doubt inform my opinions on certain topics.

Q: What can I expect to read here?

A: Come back and find out!  I write about what interests me. I enjoy humor, science, politics, travel, music, technology and, of course, my wonderful family.

So thanks for dropping by. I hope to have something more substantive in the very near future.

The objections to the Cordoba Initiative’s project to build a new community center tend to rest on the notion that there is something inherently offensive and deliberately provocative about the plans. It is often said that the planned location, which is two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center is too close and therefore distasteful. It is also sometimes argued that the location would be acceptable had more time passed since the attacks of September 11^th, 2001. It is also implied that Cordoba has some kind of nefarious intent for its building. These arguments are as disingenuous as they are vague. How long should Cordoba wait or how far away must they build in order to satisfy their critics? So two blocks is too close—how about 10? 20? Two miles? The same borough? City? County? How many years? One? Five? Fifteen? The acceptable distance in time or space is never stated, probably because it does not exist in the mind of opponents. Similar projects as far away as Tennessee have come under fire, so I doubt the site really has anything to do with it. Cordoba has a track record of providing a moderate voice that condemns extremism and fosters interfaith dialogue.

However, let us take the objection at face value and examine possible motivations for choosing the proposed site. It could be that the location is intended to be a monument to the attackers, demonstrating that Islam somehow has achieved victory in one of the Great Satan’s former strongholds. But for that to be case, one would expect that the people behind the initiative are going out of their way to meet at a site that is far from their normal gathering place. This is not the case. The Imam behind the project has been leading a congregation in the area for 27 years. They were meeting ten blocks away from the World Trade Center long before the attacks took place, and they have remained in the area since. They are as much a part of the area as any other business or organization. One might say that they were twice victims. First, their kin were lost, their homes, stores and houses of worship suffered from damage and debris just like everyone else. Then, they were blamed for somehow contributing or having an affiliation with the terrorists, despite being as different in values, faith and practice from Al-Qaeda as Methodists or Catholics. One could understand a momentary lapse of judgment under such extreme conditions, but as the protests show, it is still going on ten years later.

Which brings us to the point that it perhaps it is too soon to build in lower Manhattan. Applied consistently, this argument is more philosophical than legal or moral. A movement to turn the entire neighborhood into a memorial park of some sort in order to honor the lives and memories of the victims might warrant some consideration. I’ve pointed out in the past that Americans, as a people, have all but forgotten how to mourn. However, there is little precedent, past or present for memorials, nor have there been serious efforts in this regard in Manhattan. Every nation has thousands of former crime scenes and battle sites, and nearly all of them are cleaned up and put back to commercial or residential use. In the case of Cordoba, the objections are not rooted in preservation, but prevention. People do not want a particular group to build a particular kind of facility, but they have not taken the effort to examine the source of their prejudice. It is not fair, logical or even practical to suspect millions of Americans of terrorist ties on the basis of their religion and heritage. We instinctively recognize this when terrorists look and dress like us. We know that the abortion clinic bomber or mafia boss is not representative of his faith or race. Yet, somehow, people that are different are mentally blended and classified as “other.” There is an area where the Golden Rule is sorely needed. Were the shoe on the other foot, would the Palins and Gingriches of the world really want people from a thousand miles away accusing them of terrorist associations because a handful of White Christians committed an atrocity?

The final objection commonly raised is that not Cordoba is something other than the peaceful organization it claims to be. The talking heads continue to imply that something untoward is going on, but their accusations do not pass logical muster. A secret, shadowy group does not go around building a multi-story facility in a conspicuous location. The implication completely ignores the role and judgment of local authorities, which are otherwise the heroes of the Right. Constructing a new building in a major city is no small undertaking. The property must be procured, and the plans approved by zoning boards, commissions studying safety, construction and impact on the area. Throughout this entire process, the government officials of New York City the ones who are most likely to have first-hand knowledge of the individuals behind the project, have approved the undertaking at every step along the way. The planned building is neither not ostentatious or out of place in any way. It is not as if there will be a towering minaret that would be more at home in Medina than Manhattan. It is a simple community center, complete with a museum, library, and swimming pool. This will certainly be an aesthetic improvement over the damaged building that currently occupies the site. If someone has genuine information to back their assertions, it would be more prudent to bring their evidence before law enforcement and intelligence officials than a talk show audience. If there is no evidence, then it is not the motivations of Cordoba that deserve suspicion. Frankly, I have far more reason to suspect the integrity of those who would impugn the character of their fellow citizens for political points than I do of people that have been living peaceful, quiet lives despite unwarranted oppression and discrimination.

It seems to me that the intended purpose of terrorism is the instilment of fear—fear that is profound enough to fundamentally alter behavior and values. By that standard, Al Qaeda seems to be making progress in America even as they are losing on the battlefield overseas. They seem to have an entire political movement playing right into their hands, spreading more fear, hate and discrimination that their own numbers would allow. Our officials have justified torture, warrantless wire-tapping and indefinite detention without charges. A thriving, peaceful community is coming under suspicion for sharing nothing more than similar ethnicity to our enemies. This is disheartening indeed. Much is said about the “shadow of ground zero,” but what of the shadow of the Statue of Liberty? It is bad enough to lose buildings and lives, do we really need to hand over our values as well?

When someone told Lot a crazy story, did he take it with a grain of wife?

Does Nexium cause people to move in and out of the Matrix at random intervals?

Do elephants ever suffer from trunk envy?

Do tigers ever wonder how their eyes could possibly relate to boxing a wrestler?

Why do ghosts haunt old houses? Why not find one with a pool and a big TV?

Miss Muffet’s Revenge:

Little Miss Muffet sat on her tuffet

Drinking her lemonade

Then when the spider

Set down beside her

It got hit with a full can of Raid

And now that it’s dead

Let it never be said

That Miss Muffet was ever afraid

Ever feel like parts of Genesis Chapter 1 have been redacted? (Missing text in italics):

⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God created the thousand-cubit Sky Jellyfish, but it just didn’t look right,

    And kind of gave him the willies, so

⁹God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God called the dry land Saskatchewan, and the waters Lake Xochimilco

But they were really hard to spell, so

 ¹⁰God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters he called the Seas: and then it was good.

Business Idea: Shrodinger’s Veterinary Hospital & Pet Cemetery—Because You Never Know if Fluffy is Gone for Good

When cockroaches are dying, do they go toward the light?

Were there ever Samsing and Samsang televisions and cell phones?

Business Idea: Bottom’s Up—Fairmont’s first gay nightclub.

If they were all California girls, their maternity wards would be overrun.

Do rock stars daydream about having office jobs?

But why male models?

I wonder if the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop is prime.

Business Idea: Assault Brand Batteries—Guaranteed to Beat the Competition

My Dell is running slow. I wonder if there is a farmer in there.

Would Miss Manners keep her name if she got married?

Which is more fun to say—pickle, or cucumber?

Why do power supplies have to be plugged in?

Product Idea: Calffeine—The Energy Veal!

Can food be refrigerated if it was never cold in the first place?

Shouldn’t Victoria’s secret have gotten out by now?

Do elementary particles grow up and become Universe-ities?

Did John Lee Hooker ever get the reds?

If six was nine, I’d have to take math again.

If I close my eyes forever, will it all remain unchanged?

Probably not. Ozzy should know better.

Have I driven a Ford? Lately?

Let me think, that rental car in AZ. . .no, it was a Chevy. Guess not. . .

Do good balls of fire get jealous toward great ones?

All the lonely people, where do they all come from?

I’m pretty sure there is a loneliness factory next to the controversy manufacturing plant.

Is that in New York?

Yep, 1211 Avenue of the Americas.

Which would I rather be—a tree, a rock, or a lake?

Does streak-free window cleaner still work if you are naked?

Are my filing cabinets self-aware? Do they like me?

I wonder what bumblebees taste like . . .

Bitter beer batter. Say It five times fast.

I like turtles. .

And sleep.

Boobs.

Zzzzzz. . . .