5 Reasons People Believe Crazy Things

Just one point regarding abstinence only: You make the assumption that proponents of abstinence only education want STDs to become less prevalent, when I'm not sure this is the case. Typically, these people are motivated by religious doctrine that sex outside of marriage is immoral. So why would they want to make the activity less risky? Wouldn't they have a rational interest in making it as risky as possible, to increase the size of the deterrent effect? If you were 90% likely to contract HIV from pre-marital sex, would you still do it? If you were 90% likely to die of adultery, would you be more or less likely to have an affair?

A good and valid observation.

Scott, I was thinking the exact same thing. I know plenty of guys who have sex with girls regularly, but I wouldn't be bothered if they got a girl pregnant. That would be like if I got upset because someone who eats donuts all the time gets fat. It's a natural potential consequence of an action.

When I have these conversations with fellow Catholics, very few seem to mind if bad actions have bad consequences. If I preach abstinence from sex, it's not because I'm playing the odds about likelihood of pregnancy or VD from such a stance. Rather, it flows from the belief that premarital sex is wrong in itself, and a bad consequence would therefore be a just punishment (possibly).

People on the East Coast probably mock the abstinence only people in Texas, but I think WFB was on to something when he said "I'd rather be governed by the first 400 names in the telephone book than the entire faculty at Harvard."

The rules that evolved within the Judeo-Christian tradition did so during a span of thousands of years during which little actually changed. From the advent of the plow, until the industrial revolution, life was defined by pretty much all the same factors. By the 1960s that had expired. Machines made women equal laborers to men, the first reliable female birth control made them secure in planning their pregnancies, and social inhibitions relaxed enough to let individuals decide new paths. The result is that cultural wisdom that was worshiped, cultivated, and passed down for millennia is obsolete. Thus, contraceptives and other unprecedented changes in human life have obliterated many sacred aspects of our cultural heritage. You don't have to be religious to appreciate the stressor this presents. And not everyone is taking it in stride. People don't respond well to "what used to be sacred ain't." Those who grew up before the apex of transition (mid 60s) have taken it especially hard. For example, the AIDS epidemic is actually a great affirmation to many people who see it as proof that the old ways hold transcending wisdom. That so many of its victims are gays or Africans is further affirmation--proof that the sanctified are, truly, "set apart."

This is a perfect, spot-on analysis.

Your assuming that these people follow their beliefs to the letter. They don't. They still believe it but watch porn, cheat on their wives/husbands, have premarital sex, get divorces etc. These belies would be far more prevalent if the people who believed and learned them followed them.

There is some truth to this. Personally, I've always gotten a chuckle that there are a significant number of girls out there who are too religious to use a condom or be on the pill, but not too religious to abstain from intercourse. That said, when people are actually trying to walk the walk and do right by their Creator, I think they are deserving of support, rather than ridicule. It's a tricky thing, trying to be perfect as a human - but that certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to be as close to it as we can.

I'd say people who support abstinence only education generally do not care about abortions and STDs. They care about being in power and telling others what is right. In their mind abstinence before marriage is the only "correct" stance, therefore if they stick to that mentality and push that agenda. If they tell people abstinence is the only way and people continue to have premarital sex and continue having abortions, they can wipe their hands of it and blame them on the "heathens". It is apparent they do not truely care about reducing the abortions themselves. If that is their belief, then so be it. It is their perogative. But do not try to tell me they are trying to reduce abortions, because they aren't. They are trying to make abortions evil, thereby putting themselves in the right. Reduced abortions due to this stance would be a happy side-effect, but is certainly not required.

I think a lot of it is actually more about the feeling that schools (especially public schools) shouldn't be taking sides in political and/or religious matters. I'm not sure how abstinence-only proponents are trying to take "power and [tell] others what to do" anymore than the people who want to see free condoms available in public middle schools are. Teaching abstinence as the only 100% reliable birth control method isn't opinion so much as it's fact. The thing is, teaching abstinence doesn't prohibit parents from teaching other birth control methods in the privacy of their own homes. Conversely, handing out condoms to 12 year olds in a public school DOES inhibit the parents' ability to prevent access to such materials. If a parent wants their kids to know how to use condoms, then so much the better - so long as the parents who disagree about this strongly political and moral issue are still free to raise their children as they see fit.

Anyone who tells another group how they should behave is trying to assert their dominance over that group, be it becasue they want to feel superior, or they "know what's good for them". Those passing out condoms are NOT telling children to have sex. If they were I'd be just as suspect as their motives. There is a significant difference between teaching children the facts about sex and teaching children not to have sex. One is spreading information, the other is attempting to force a behavior. If you have learned anything from interacting with people over the course of your lifetime, you should know that people, especially children, do not respond well to being told how to act. If you want your children to follow your rules, come home before curfew, call when they'll be late, you don't enforce with an iron fist. All this does is encourage the child to rebel. The only way to get a child, but really anyone, to side with you is to engage them in conversation, discuss the facts, and respect their opinion. You cannot have a real conversation about sex without discussing contraception.
You are correct that parents really should be having this conversation with their children, not the schools. However, parents have gotten ever more lazy and expect the school to teach their child everything. A large proportion of parents will not have a meaningful conversation about sex with their children because it is a difficult topic to convey appropriately. They rely on the school to teach the child everything there is to know about sex. if the school is only teaching abstinence, most of those children will be wofully ill-prepared for adolescence and adulthood.
Lastly, you cannot simply fall back on "raise their children as they see fit". While parents should retain the right to raise their children with the same morals, they don't get a free pass to do whatever they like. You cannot beat your children as a form of punishment. You cannot decide not to send your child to school or home-school them. There are standards that you must follow in order to raise a child in society. And when it comes to sex-ed, you are talking about an act that can have a serious affect on the life of not only the child, but the other person involved and potentially a baby. Failing to teach a child the facts about sex is on par with failing to teach them reading, writing, math, or science.
Again, I will fall back on the numbers. If you truly want abortions, teen pregnancies, and STDs to decrease, your only option is a full sex-ed course. If you want to tell kids how they should behave because that matters more than the actual results, then teach them abstinence only.

The entire point of my original comment was that it is wrong to assume that proponents of abstinence-only care about preventing STDs or teen pregnancy. Your last paragraph is nothing but a straw-man argument.

Along those same straw-man lines, I never claimed that making free condoms available is the same thing as telling the kids to have sex. I simply noted that open availability makes it more difficult for parents to limit their children's access to birth control, which, if the parents have religious objections to birth control, I believe that it is reasonable to give them the right to limit access to it by their children. Just like I believe it's reasonable to allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide or administer birth control to their patients.

If you, as a parent, want your kid to have easy access to condoms, then you're free to provide them yourself. Not providing them at schools does not inhibit their availability. Conversely, providing them does inhibit the ability of parents who wish to raise their children consistent with the principals of many of the most popular and widely-accepted religions in the country.

This is a religious tolerance issue. So long as the parents are made aware that the school will not be teaching contraception use ahead of time, each family is free to give their children as much or as little pragmatic knowledge as they see fit. If there are parents who believe strongly that their children should know how to use birth control,and who still refuse to teach it themselves, then they are negligent. Sadly, there is little we can do about negligent parenting.

But certainly, a government take-over of all parenting responsibilities is not in anyone's best interest.

Presuming for a moment that it is a religious freedom issue, how would you respond to the following logic:

1. Public schools exist entirely as a societal investment to produce the greatest good for the most people (return on investment).

2. There is no question the data shows comprehensive health education, along with access to contraceptives, achieves this by resulting in lower sexually transmitted disease, lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and lower rates of abortion.

3. This not only makes life better for the people who would have made foolish choices in their youth, but it lowers taxpayer expense for things such as food stamps, medical care for single mothers, etc.

4. The alternative, abstinence only education, achieves none of these things. In fact, it leads to higher instances of all the evils previously described.

5. Therefore, isn't it the responsibility of parents who follow a particular belief system, in this case not wanting their child to know the extensive details about human reproduction, to enroll their child in private religious schools, just as devout Roman Catholics, practicing Orthodox Jews, and pious Muslims have done for centuries?

To draw a parallel: If a religion sprang up in my hometown that didn't want math taught because it believed math was "wrong", even though we know that the societal benefits of math are extremely important and make life better, why should the school have to consider that? Isn't it the responsibility of the parents who follow that belief system to put their child in a no-math school? Should I really have to worry about votes at the school board about whether or not algebra will be included in the curriculum?

Human health is no less important. Why should it be held to a different standard than math education?

If there existed a voucher program, such that the religious minority that you envision were able to put the taxpayer dollars that they contribute to schools whose teachings violate their faith toward their own religious education, then your private-school proposal would be largely acceptable.

However, lacking such a program, effectively you are levying a tax on religious observers who are attempting to exercise their right to free exercise of religion, which as you surely know is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. As such, your proposal does not seem viable.

I would suggest that if you believe that teaching contraception methods would truly save taxpayer money by lowering long-term expenditure on social programs, providing these vouchers may well have a net positive effect on government budgets. This, of course, would need to be studied far more extensively than I am able to at the moment, but I'm sure you get the gist.

I will say that when you try to marginalize religious freedom by comparing the Christian majority in this country to a radical cult that may be against mathematics, you start to weaken the persuasiveness of your argument, though I do appreciate the illustrative nature of it. It's been a few years since I sat for the SATs, but I don't seem to recall a section on contraception. I know several people who attended college while being a parent - not so many who attended without knowing arithmetic. There are millions of Americans currently employeed who have young children at home - not so many who aren't familiar with mathematics. I'm not sure the two are a perfectly level comparison.

I know from your earlier post about teaching your niece with sidewalk chalk that you clearly understand that children can enrich the life of the parent in myriad ways. Illiteracy...well, not so much.

I would also point out that your failure to consider the social benefits of creating more children (read: future taxpayers and entrepreneurs) has for society. Realistically, the only thing that can save Social Security as we know it today is another baby boom. Not that increasing teen pregnancy is the ideal route of achieving that end, but nonetheless. Money is amoral (not immoral, amoral) - even increased abortions act as an economic stimulus, however disgusting people like me find them - there's even a multiplier effect when religious groups create those white cross displays protesting them.

I still have an issue with treating this as a religious freedom issue. Treating the school system as atheistic would be about as accurate as I can be. Atheism has been described by many atheists and theists alike as a religion in itself. Even ignoring that, the concept on not believing in a belief system is in itself a belief. Therefore, the idea of religious freedom works both ways. If Catholics have the right to tell the school what can and cannot be taught in public schools, so do atheists, or anyone with a belief system for that matter. In that scenario there can be no resolution because all belief systems have equal right to controlling what is taught in schools. This seems to me where seperation of church and state comes into play. The school curriculum should not be dictated by any belief system. Although, to be fair, if we treat atheism as a belief and the school system as atheist, then the school system cannot dictate its own curriculum. Therefore, the curriculum of the school should be dictated by logic and societal benefit, which, while a belief system itself, has other data and metrics to support itself, rather then just faith alone. Ideally (at least in this lone aspect) all schools would be private, and each school system can teach what it wants. This, of course, is not ideal in just about every other aspect.
I cannot possibly believe that an incease in unwed teen pregnancies could have an economic benefit to society. While people CAN be a benefit, that is only when they are productive members of society. A child born to a single teenage mother has a much higher probability to be raised poorly, receive a poor education, and end up on social programs to support his/herself. In this situation, the child is an economic drain, not a benefit. If you include the increased liklihood of that teenage mother either dropping out of high school, not going to college, or otherwise not recieving the same education they would have, their decrease in economic output would also make this situation even less appealing. As for Social Security, this would not help the problem any because most people who have a low income pay little to nothing into SS. I understand this is not the case in every situation, but on average, this is true.
As for your comment regarding abortions, I cannot think of any reality where they would be considered an economic stimulus. The doctor may charge for them, but in the end there is no net gain of economic activity I can think of, other than the possible monetary benefit to the mother for not having to care for a child they are ill-equipped to handle.

"Therefore, the curriculum of the school should be dictated by logic and societal benefit, which, while a belief system itself, has other data and metrics to support itself, rather then just faith alone." - I just applauded like Clara when she gets excited in "The Guild". That accurately sums up my default position because I think it is the only one that is sustainable.

Seconded. Great Post, Ian.

@Polypmaster:disqus I absolutely and wholeheartedly concur that the religious freedom of theists and atheists alike needs to be respected by our common government. However, as I detailed above, failing to pass out free condoms at schools in no way inhibits the opportunity of those who do not have religious objections to provide birth control to their children. Yet the inverse is not true. As such, I have a difficult time understanding how the best outcome is to do anything but err on the side of conservatism.

In many ways, this is the same as the school prayer debate. Some people advocate prayer, others object. So we err on the side of conservatism and respect for all by disallowing it.

I've enjoyed the conversation so far. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

In all seriousness: By that logic, shouldn't tax payer subsidies of religious organizations be rescinded? If you open that door, don't non-religious Americans have a right to say churches and synagogues shouldn't be given tax-free status since that is essentially a gift from the public? If we keep trying to divide the proverbial candy bar, doesn't it at some point become ridiculous?

What we are really touching on is one of the issues that remains in my "too hard" pile that I haven't talked about on the site: The constitutional rights of parents versus the constitutional rights of children.

A perfect example is the court ruling in Canada that has been discussed lately in legal blogs. It came to my attention because of the money the Kennon & Green Foundation donates to Christian churches and charities, which were upset by the decision. At first it seemed so concerning that I dropped everything to research it. Then, I realized the case was not what it appeared to be.

In this particular case, parents sent their children to Catholic schools. The Catholic schools banned any social club that didn't conform with the particular school's view of scripture, including support groups for gay students called gay-straight-alliances that would run anti-bullying programs. The court decided schools were required to allow the groups despite being a private religious school and despite parents and administrators objecting on religious grounds.

At first it sounds outrageous, especially to someone with a libertarian streak like me. You have a private group, with private money, and private employees, following private religious beliefs. Then, you read the ruling and realize this case is really about the religious freedom of adults versus the religious freedom of minors. The decision only states that the parents and schools must allow such clubs if the students themselves vote them into existence as they would any other club.

In essence, the court ruled that freedom of religion and belief still exist even if you are under age and that if those kids want such a group, they have the right to form it in exercise of their right to freedom of assembly and right to freedom of religion.

Isn't that, to some degree, equally applicable to health education? At what point does the rights of a 16 year old, who is about to enter adulthood and is already, statistically speaking, likely to be sexually active, come before his or her parents?

I don't have any answers, yet. Like I said, it is on my "too hard" pile because you have one set of freedoms bumping up against another set of freedoms and I almost always side toward the individual most affected, meaning I lean toward the rights of minors.

@joshuakennon:disqus
Thank you, as well, for staying so involved in the comments section here, and keeping the conversation alive. I have enjoyed it as well.

Our society has already acknowledged that the rights of minors are severely restricted compared to the rights of adults in this nation - and especially in schools, where students are subject to random searches clearly in violation of a strict reading of the 4th Amendment. I'm not sure if you're familiar with a case a few years ago called Morse V. Frederick - it was a 1st Amendment case where a student had come to an event with a banner that read "BONG HITS 4 JESUS". The Supreme Court ruled that while on school grounds, or during a school-sponsored event, the school (read: government) was within its right to limit the free speech of students who are compelled by law to attend school.

If that is the standard that we have established for schools (I disagree with this standard, but also recognize the importance of stare decisis for continuity of government), I have a difficult time understanding why a different standard would be used when dealing with religious freedoms.

I agree that it is vital to respect the religious freedom of minors, but also feel that it is a parent's duty to raise their children as best they can, given each home's unique prerogative. It would be negligent parenting, in my opinion, for a devout Christian to refuse to raise their child in the Church, if they believed as a tenant of their faith that the only salvation is through Christ. In other words, if you believe that having a relationship with God is as vital to a person's spiritual health as drinking water is to their physical health, then it is gross negligence to withhold either.

But really, I think that a lot of this conversation has ignored the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Namely, if it is illegal for a minor to consent to sexual relations, why is it ok for schools to aid and abet such behavior by providing condoms? It, to me, seems akin to telling kids "don't steal cars" but passing out free crowbars so they don't cut themselves by punching through a car window. The overwhelming majority of STDs currently have cures - if you want to provide free penicillin shots to kids who contract syphilis, that would be perfectly agreeable to me. Abortions are legal in all 50 states, whether you like it or not. There is very little that can be done through sex that cannot be undone.

There's a saying, "good judgement comes from experience, which comes from bad judgement." At some point, you have to take your hand of the kid's bicycle, and let them fall down and scrape their knee.

Now in cases of true religious oppression by parents? We already have a mechanism to help remedy that. It's called emancipation. If a kid feels that strongly about something, they already have the means to do something about it.

Getting back to the top of your comment, and the tax subsidies - you can argue it either way. On one hand, let's tax them on their profits like any other corporation...but then again, they don't really earn profits, so I doubt that would raise much revenue. I see no reason to discriminate against religious charities compared to secular charities, by changing the charitable contribution deduction for individuals and corporations, though. Giving to the Red Cross directly earns a tax deduction, but donating to the Red Cross indirectly through a dedicated collection at a church does not? Really, to do so would likely run afoul of the 1st Amendment, again. On the other hand, you could try to tax them like individuals (on the top line rather than the bottom), but I doubt there would be very many proponents of this.

After reading that, my first thought was the phrase made famous by the great Charlie Munger: "I have nothing to add."

This is exactly right. I read an article by a former proponent of absinence education. Liberals are baffled as to why they would support something so risky and ineffective. What they don't realize is that many, many people in the abstinence only movement WANT sexually active people to get STDs and endure teen pregnancies. It's their punishment for sinning. Because if they provided advice to mitigate these things there would be no negative consequences to sex and nobody would be abstinent.

I grew up in a cult. A religion within a religion. Sanctified. I am still embedded--virtually everyone I know and most of the people I love are praying that I will be sanctified again. If you know what it feels like to sacrifice to protect someone you love while they rail on your heresy... Unless you're gifted with denial, University isn't a very cult friendly place and if I was gifted with denial I wouldn't have been studying in a ranked Psych dept. I didn't like what I saw. But I saw it. After a nervous breakdown I spent two years in the fold trying to prove that I could choose to believe if I wanted to. My experience taught me things that I can't find anyone to share with. I am isolated. No one inside the cult understands. But no one outside the cult understands either. They often believe a lot of the same things. Like fleeing the DPRK for the PRC--it's just another layer. For instance, Americans decry and ban the barbarity of FGM but think nothing of doing the same to their sons. What I learned that I have the hardest time sharing is how little choice I had in any of it. Religions wouldn't have much to offer if it weren't so profoundly important that humans be protected from the truth about how little control they really have.

We've been having discussions around here lately about the disconnect between condemning FGM but permitting it for males following the recent German court case that said religious freedom for the child applies and that he must make the decision himself in adulthood. The response, almost always from females, has been overwhelmingly negative. "It isn't the same thing!" "Parents have a right to do that to a child, it isn't assault!" Almost as if simply asking the question was a personal attack. It's been ... interesting ... to watch. I haven't told anyone my personal opinion on the matter because that influences how people react to you, which would give me biased feedback data.

Have you thought about writing an anonymous blog on your experiences? Charlie Munger talks about the so-called orangutan theory. In essence, if a person walks into a circus tent and explains a concept to an orangutan, who can offer no feedback or response, he will walk out the other side having a much better understanding of the issue, having forced himself to work through it in a logical way.

Watch a circumcision being performed. It's heinous and barbaric. Americans today think of it as normal the same way people thought beating a rebellious slave to death was normal 200 years ago.

I have exactly that:
http://thelonelyhumanist.wordpress.com/

Good post. I wonder how the Chinese Government falls into this category? Looking back on history centuries from now it would be interesting to read that story.

Good question. Personally, I wonder how many in the Chinese government actually buy the party line and how many use it as a career move. Long after the founding of any devout institution, it tends to become a bureaucracy where people don't buy into the mission any longer. To a lot of people, it just becomes a job.

Josh, have you read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman? I imagine you may have already come across it, but if you haven't you should get a copy, I think you'd find it interesting.

The cover of the book looks really familiar. I probably bought it years ago and have it on the "to read" list in the library. I will try and look ... if not, I will order it. Thanks for the tip!

I love your site. I ended up here through a google search on Net Worth and just kept reading... Now that I've been through several other areas, I have a serious question. Why do you contribute to the Christian Church? It seems as though you have a pretty poor opinion of them in general.

I take it you are referring to the grants issued to Christian ministries and outreach programs by the Kennon & Green Foundation? And the fact that I have occasionally let it slip that I, and my family, are Christian?

The TL;DR version is that I love Christ, how He lived, and what He stood for. The love of Christ, is in fact, a higher and harder standard than anything I could ever possibly imagine. When looking at issues like abortion resulting from rape, is it permitted or rational? Yes. Could I do it if I were acting like Christ? No. I'd have the child anyway and love it like my own son or daughter because he or she had no guilt. It's just an impossible standard, which makes it even more awe inspiring. When you live by that standard, you are never going to harm anyone. Unfortunately, I don't think the modern church looks, or behaves, anything like Him. Like most religions, it has devolved into a "if you do X then Y will or will not happen to you" system of reward and punishment due to the psychological need of most people to feel in control. It seems to attract people with addiction and anxiety problems who use it as a surrogate outlet for neuroticism.

The detailed explanation, since you cared to ask ... There are three primary reasons:

1. A local church, when acting Christ-like, is one of the greatest sources of human capital in any community. Several years ago, I happened to visit a small Greek Orthodox service with a friend on a Sunday morning. At the end of the service, the lobby had been transformed into a banquet hall and food prepared by the members. Everyone sat and ate together, fellowshipping, getting involved in the lives of the various families, and talking about their successes and struggles. The church also ran a food bank and expected everyone to participate in one capacity or another, literally feeding people who didn't have enough to eat during the economic crash. One or two institutions like that in a community can make life much better for the average citizen. If Churches looked more like Project Open Hand and less like car dealerships, the world would be vastly improved.

2. This is going to sound coldly rational but religion serves an important societal function for many people, especially those with addictive personalities. Often, addiction is never really cured, you just swap one addiction for another. The most rabid, crazy religious people in the world are often reformed drug addicts, sex addicts, porn addicts, or gambling addicts who were able to break their habits and restore sanity to their life through the Church. The idea that they are being attacked by an outside source makes it possible to disassociate from the disease of addiction and actually manage it. Likewise, the idea that there is an outside source offering strength makes it easier to escape temptation. This won't always be the case (we already have a cocaine vaccine in the lab so I imagine that within a 30 to 50 years, things like alcohol dependency will be cured) but for now, it is the best solution. Not to mention, existing shared-bond organizations would be absolutely vital in the event the United States ever found itself in another civil war or under the threat of a dictator. People who don't read history seem to forget that when societies fall apart, and they do from time to time, it is the small social units that provide the greatest emotional, physical, and survival support.

3. I have my own, personal, religious reasons.

With that said, it's not that I have a poor opinion of the Church proper per se. I have a poor opinion irrationality. I cannot stand people who refuse to think. Let me give you an example.

I was recently tipped off about a story involving several mental models that I will write about in the future. It led to a Facebook page where a young man posted about some health problems he was having. The symptoms included fever, night sweats, chills, loss of appetite, body aches and fatigue in the lower back and legs. He didn't want to return to the doctor due to a lack of health insurance. The symptoms sounded very much like Lyme disease and he lived in an area where this diagnosis was common.

Here were some typical comments left in response: "Satan doesn't like what you are doing; you should ask God to break any spells, incantations or curses sent your way in the Name of Jesus." and "Sounds like a spiritual attack. You need a prayer team. You are going to be openly targeted by a lot of people that are very angry with God."

That isn't religious. That is stupid. There is no difference between those people and witchdoctors on the African Savannah dancing around with painted faces or some cult doing fertility and rain dances thinking it influences the meteorological and biological patterns. It is mindless superstition that can lead to a significant loss of life and health. At what point do we stop saying, "We need to respect everyone's beliefs" and instead say, "You are an idiot"?

Likewise, I recently read another blog by a very devout woman who is always in hysterics about spiritual warfare. This woman says she is always attacked by the devil and hears demons, sees things, etc. Looking at her age when the first "experiences" manifested, her family history, and other details of her writings, it is very clear that she is schizophrenic. Given her poverty, also understandable and common due to employment difficulty of those who have mental disease, she writes about how it is God's will for people to suffer and that it is a sign of a true believer. Her brain is desperately attempting to rationalize what is happening to it and the narrative she has created offers some relief from the anxiety. Someone needs to go have her committed and get her on the proper medications so she gets rest. Instead, she is teaching youth groups and hosting leadership conferences at small churches around the United States. It is insane to me that someone doesn't stand up and say, "You are not mentally well. You need to get serious professional help. This is a medical condition that can be treated."

Finally, even though the site is global in reach, a vast majority of the readers come from countries with significant, and deeply rooted, Christian cultural heritage. Using examples drawn from the dominent religion of the readers allows more powerful examples that will connect and result in visceral, as well as intellectual, reactions, making the writing more effective.

I apologize since I think I put you on the spot. Yes, I read about the foundation's gifts and also think I saw that you are Christian. I thought I had felt a bit of a dichotomy, though, in reading your analysis of the gay marriage debate. Certain statements came across as rather loaded or ad hominem (e.g. That the writers of the Bible were the same people who believed the earth was flat.)

In any case, I appreciate your answer. It was very thoughtful and more than a complete stranger deserves. I can relate to your feeling that the behavior of certain Christians is, for lack of a better word, "crazy". Sometimes I want to shout at some of them, "God gave you a brain! Use it!"

On the other hand, we don't agree on the gay marriage issue. Take your example of a Christian living in an atheist environment where the government professes to love Christians but doesn't let them practice their religion in any meaningful way. This analogy doesn't really ring true to me. The implication is that marriage among two men or two women is an age old tradition just like the reading of Bible, when it is not. It would be easier for me to see the opposite side of that analogy, where the gay community is able to enact legislation - "hate speech" laws if you will, outlawing the Bible or the preaching of what it contains.

The frustrating thing is that those supporting gay marriage are successfully able to frame the debate as bashing gays or denying them rights. It really is about the definition of a word. Up until the last couple of decades, there was never any question about what marriage meant. Defending the meaning of a word is hardly repressing anyone.

I concede that I am moved by ( and probably agree with ) the argument you make about federal benefits, but I consider this a separate issue from the definition of the word "marriage".

That's okay. I will admit, it was a personal, rather than an intellectual, question. Normally I don't answer those. I'm not sure why I did, frankly. But welcome to the site 🙂

In the discussion about marriage equality, I think it is important to draw a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. An example would be most helpful in explaining how I see it.

I have a much older family member (in her 80's), who was divorced. She had several children. She is protestant. She fell in love with a man who was Catholic. They wanted to get married, despite their age. They had no trouble getting the paperwork at the local county courthouse and could have been legally wed in under a week.

However, the Catholic church informed them that they could not have a ceremony sanctioned by the church, which was very important to the man, unless my female relative annulled her previous marriage (a marriage that lasted 30 years, mind you, and produced many children; I'm not sure it really 'counts' as not happening, but those were their requirements, which I respect). This was their interpretation of scripture and doctrine.

The couple decided not to get married. They had a legal right to a civil marriage but they did not have a right to force a particular religion to sanction that marriage. A Jewish person can't demand a Catholic wedding; a Buddhist can't demand protestant recognition. You have to find a pastor or priest who is willing to perform the ceremony.

That is also true of same sex couples but confusion comes in because most people lack understanding of the so-called "public accommodation" laws that have been in effect in the United States since the civil rights era of the 1960's. These laws say that anyone who offers to sell a product or service to the public must be open to all people equally, regardless of who those people are or what they believe.

This stopped "white only" restaurants. It made it illegal for a Christian to be denied a hotel room because the inn owner was Muslim. It made it illegal for shops to only sell certain products to men but not women. Can you imagine if you found yourself broken down on the side of the road in the middle of the night and the tow truck driver refused to help you because you were religious and he was an atheist? Under public accommodation laws, it would happen once and he would be out of business. His job is to tow your car, not worry about your personal beliefs.

Just like a Jewish person couldn't refuse to rent a dance hall to a Catholic, or a photographer who was a member of the KKK can't refuse to work an event hosted by the Black Panthers, public accommodation laws mean a Catholic can't deny the services it sells to the public to a same sex couple because everyone has to be treated equally. This has nothing to do with marriage and has always been the case, even if they wanted to throw a party or have a non-binding 'commitment ceremony'. You could get around it by having "member only" facilities that require financial payments. This is how some of the most exclusive golf clubs in the country still remain white-only or male-only. The membership model side steps the public accommodation rules.

To bring it back to my own family's example: Imagine that my 80-year-old relative had decided to get married in a civil ceremony but not get the annulment. If the local Catholic church had a facility it rented out to couples as a source of income, she could have used it in a civil marriage ceremony. The church could not have denied them even though it did not recognize the wedding. Likewise, if a Catholic photographer didn't want to photograph the event due to his or her own convictions, he or she could have been sued under the public accommodation laws. That has been the case for the past 50 years.

All of that still applies to marriage equality. If a church doesn't believe in marriage equality, they will still be free to hold that stance. They could still define marriage as one man or one woman, forbid divorce, require annulments, require a declaration of faith in the divinity of Christ, etc. We've gotten along fine for centuries under this system. Catholics, protestants, Jews, muslims, agnostics, Buddhists. It has never changed. Civil marriage is different from religious ceremonies.

It sounds like you are concerned about public accommodation laws. As a libertarian, I have mixed feelings about them. They serve a good purpose (e.g., the tow truck example and stopping segregation of restaurants) but they can be abused.

Joshua, did you hear about the atheist suing over a "bulletin discount" at a restaurant?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/atheist-john-wolff-sues-over-church-bulletin-discount-at-restaurant-fair-or-foul/question-2780139/

I don't know that I have a problem with most public accommodation laws, but an intimate setting like a wedding to me seems different. It's one thing to help your fellow man meet their needs and be treated with basic human dignity but it's another thing to help them celebrate something you disagree with. My interpretation as a Christian is that I could shoot the wedding. To me it would be done in the same spirit as Jesus' teaching on kindness in the beatitudes. But I would probably be a lousy photographer for that couple, even trying to do my best.

What a perfect example of the public accommodation laws I just mentioned in a response on this very comment thread!

I hadn't seen that. I think it is a stupid lawsuit. Then again, I hated the idea that seniors got to pay lower prices from everyone else when I was in elementary school. It seemed unfair, especially since they (as a group) control the most wealth after a lifetime of work.

You have two issues. 1.) The legal issue, and 2.) The moral issues.

As to the first, you are probably more qualified than I am to comment on it.

As to the second, the best way to do it is run scenarios. If memory serves me correctly, (and you have posted this on the blog before but if you want me to delete it for some reason, I will, just let me know), but you are a midwestern, white, heterosexual, Catholic, slightly-right politically, capitalist, college-educated, male adult, correct?

If you were in a restaurant, how would you feel:

If the owner gave black diners a lower price, effectively charging you more because you were white?

If the owner gave the gay people a lower price, effectively charging you more because you were straight?

If the owner gave Democrats a lower price, effectively charging you more because you were slightly conservative?

If the owner gave females a lower price than you, effectively charging you more because you are male?

Ad infinitum.

(Personally, I'd be irritated but probably just roll my eyes and find somewhere else to eat unless they had fantastic pie or something. Good food forgives a lot of things. I'm also not inclined to make myself unhappy.)

Intellectually, I have a real problem with this one. I just can't see a way to undo the public accommodation laws because they are the foundation of anti-segregation regulations. If you tear down the foundation, what's to stop an inn keeper from turning you away from the night because you are a Christian. (Actually, you'd be in good company on that one ... and completely appropriate given the topic. Though, I hope you wouldn't end up in a manger. Surely there would be a Best Western around or something. They didn't have those in Bethlehem.)

That said, on a micro-level, I still think it's a stupid lawsuit. If you really want the discount, walk into a church and get a bulletin. It doesn't require you to stay or believe anything. On a macro-level, I can't find a way to throw it out without a lot of collateral damage.

How do you feel about it?

For me the guy nailed it: "self righteousness." There is an ironclad consensus in America that religion is superior to no religion. That is unfair and, I think, dangerous. I am well familiar with the "whiner" view of individuals in the 2% calling out the 98%. But there are a number of issues that the VAST majority are wrong on. When it comes to defending secular society without feeding a public perception issue, I'm not sure how to win--"even Bin Laden believed in SOMETHING," right?

I don't know that it's fair to call it "self-righteousness." Evangelical Christians believe that it is their moral duty to proselytize. They believe that if they don't spread the word of God, that they are actively harming those whom they ignore. From their point of view, it's not their choice - they have a holy obligation to do it. I just think it's a double-standard for an atheist to think that their religious views are any more correct or important than the evangelical's.

The truth is that none among us have all the answers. So we should default to the path that does the least harm to the fewest number of people. A system that returns complete control of this aspect of education seems to fit that description pretty darn well, to my eyes. It doesn't force anybody's views on anyone else. The children of atheists or pragmatists can be educated consistent with the will of their parents, and the same is true for the children of the devout. The alternative means pushing doctrine based in atheism on everyone - which is just as inappropriate as a public school having mandatory school prayers every morning.

In my opinion, teaching "abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancies and STDs. There are other, reasonably effective tools out there, and you can ask your parents about them if you want to know more," seems to be the least intrusive approach possible.

From what I hear, abstinence-only education in making a comeback in certain contexts, such as AIDS prevention in Africa. Apparently, although contraception makes an individual sexual act safer, the widespread distribution and encouragement of contraception renders a perception that sex with a condom is "safe" and so people have much more sex, and much riskier types of sex as a result. The net result is actually increased rates of AIDS infection. It's called "risk compensation."

So certain countries have been using the opposite tactic--stigmatizing premarital sex, etc.--and their AIDS rates have been going down. Correlation or causation is hard to say, but it's an interesting topic.

Another interesting topic is when you look deeper into the sex education debate in America. Opponents of abstinence-only sex education frequently point to the higher teenage pregnancy rates in the South, where abstinence-only sex education is common. But an interesting wrinkle happens when you look at the abortion statistics for each state. For instance, Delaware has an abortion rate that is more than 7x higher than Louisiana's. The implication is that in Delaware, teenagers are more likely to have abortions whereas in Louisiana, they're more likely to have the baby. We lack the data to make an accurate comparison.

Awesome! I will have to check it out!