A Twist of Things to Come

I just posted a response on Facebook that was a masterpiece of saying what I meant without being offensive and hurting people's feelings. A lady I know posted a link to the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage. I knew she was nervous about outing herself as agreeing with it, so I was going to let it go. Then I realized silence implies agreement, and while I like this lady a lot, I do think it is important to speak up when you are as passionate about something as I am for the equal rights of sexual minorities. So this is what I said:

It does not bother me that the church, or that you, believe this. One of the most important sociological functions of organized religion is to help ensure that society doesn't change too quickly, and that is a good thing. That said, I would... argue that making religious belief the basis for public law is not in the best interests of a free society, especially when the society is pluralistic. I would not want to live under sharia law, or in a place where all laws were based on Catholic doctrines. For example, the church disapproves of birth control, but I believe birth control is a societal good, especially in poor and overpopulated areas.
However, I hope you know that I respect your opinion and your faith, and I rather like you a lot, too. :) You'll get no flak from me for what you believe. :) Promise.

I was very nervous about this, but here is what she said:

I love you Olivia! It's great that we can disagree on some things, yet still be communicative and civil :) I believe that poor areas (I am unsure of exactly what is meant by overpopulated) are not well served by artificial birth control, but rather by natural family planning. Artificial birth control has a very bad way of separating the genders from one another, rather than helping them to see eye to eye.

and my response:

‎(Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat, i.e. food, clean water, etc. are insufficient. It usually leads to decreases in population through death by malnutrition and disease.) ...Although I use natural family planning myself, it is well-documented that society as a whole benefits hugely the more control women have over their reproductive choices. Fewer children usually means better access to food and other resources such as education, which in turn leads to more adults with the means to support their own families. Not sure what you mean by birth control separating the genders. It is pretty well documented that the genders come together with greater frequency and joy when they are not burdened with the fear of having more children than they can feed. But again, it has long been a sociological function of religion to control and regulate female sexuality specifically as a means of maintaining social order, and that has been a good thing for society as a whole in the past. Time marches on though, and those choices are less of a threat to social order than they once were, so there is not really much outrage against the pill, or much of a call for it to be illegal. Eventually, I believe it will be as controversial as claiming the earth isn't the center of the universe is now (which was once enough to earn one severe penalties from the church). I'm speaking in sociological terms, though, not moral ones, and I do view the church's stances on these issues to be the fulfillment of its natural, necessary role in the progress of human society. I am grateful for this, for people of faith, and the stability they provide for society as a whole. :)

Thing is, I really believe that. As frustrated as I get with social inequities and the utter opposition to social progress from certain religions, it serves its purpose. It maintains social order and keeps progress from happening so quickly that it leads to violent revolution. So its cool when organized religion is blinkard and irrationally stubborn in the face of change. It's (part of) what organized religion is for. You might as well get angry at stop lights for regulating traffic.

The point is that you eventually get where you are going, and society will change. The change is inevitable. Don't get me wrong, we can help it along, but it takes time. William Wilberforce (and others like him) spent his life fighting the slave trade, working tirelessly to gradually change public opinion and abolish the slave trade years ahead of its natural end.

But I'm really not angry at the institutions that support the mistreatment of others. Defending the status quo is what they are there for. Nor am I angry at the people who support them -- they just don't understand the righteousness of the cause the way I do. Some of them may be convinced of it, if I am lucky, but the generational change is inevitable. It's so much easier not to hate people for being wrong when you realize this. I can fight against an idea and a belief without hating people or institutions, even as I struggle against those institutions. Even if I think they are defending ideals that are stupid and irredeemable, they serve their purpose. Change is inevitable. That is very freeing.

Here's an interesting article on how to get a table at exclusive restaurants, relationships with service people and tipping. It's really interesting that his confidence increased as he went along. He paid for better treatment, then came to believe he deserved it, and still got it, even when he didn't pay for it.

Here's a video by George Takei that is awesome just because it's George Takei, who is awesome even when he says the word "douche bag" many times. I think it's The Voice.



Still, in closing, here is a talk called "Don't Be a Dick" to a skeptic society, sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation:

Phil Plait - Don't Be A Dick from JREF on Vimeo.