The Atheist Blogger

A simple philosophy that is so mindbogglingly easy to follow, yet the religious seem to be up in arms about gay marriage, and they get worse every year. Somehow the religious seem to think that they came up with this great idea called “marriage” and that is has been violated by homosexuals. The truth, as it so often is in these cases, is completely the opposite.

Marriage predates verifiable recorded history, essentially a social extension of the mating procedure for reproduction. The Greeks and Romans had marriages, both opposite sex and same sex. There were no civil ceremonies, only an “agreement” for husband and wife, or husband and husband, wife and wife accordingly.

So what violated this traditional standard of marriage? Oh that’s right…it was the Christians.^[1] In 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned same-sex marriage. In 390, three other Christian emperors, Valentinian II, Theodoisus, and Arcadius, made homosexual sex a crime punishable by death (burned alive because Christians are so merciful).

As I write this, religious fundamentalists across several different religions are rallying together to support a California proposal that effectively bans homosexual marriage. Marriage, they reckon, should be up to the religions, not the state. I ask, why can’t you have it both ways?

It would be simple. Define a state marriage that has all the perks of “regular” marriage, allowing anyone to marry anyone. Let the religions decide what they want to do about marriage within religion. There would be no difference in opinion either way. Religions would still reckon that state marriages weren’t governed by God, whilst the religious homosexuals forced to take a state marriage as their only option would argue that they were.

It has worked in the UK for the last few years, and there is no reason why it couldn’t work anywhere else. Secularisation is the only sufficient train of thought that respects the wishes of all groups. It calls for a separation of church and state. The state cannot control the church and the church cannot control the state. A very simple relationship that allows people to either align with one or both, depending on what they want to do.

So yes, let’s be traditionalists. Let’s take marriage back to its original status: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.

What with all the pressure put on her by the blogging community and the media, and the mere fact that her outburst has travelled around the globe in a matter of hours, it was just a matter of time before Illinois State Representative Monique Davis apologized to atheist activist Rob Sherman.

For those who still need a memory refresh, the transcript of the outburst (which happened whilst Rob Sherman was testifying against the Governor for donating public money to fund a church) is here:

Davis: [. . .] I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! [. . .] I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Read the rest of this entry »

The Council for Secular Humanism were the first secular organisation to ask for the resignation of Monique Davis, the Illinois Representative who shouted at atheist activist Rob Sherman whilst he was giving his testimony to oppose a $1 million tax-payer donation proposed by the Governor to a Baptist Church.

The confrontation went thus:

Davis: [. . .] I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! [. . .] I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Amid a large backlash from the blogging community, and the media (with Keith Olbermann declaring her the “Worst Person in the World”), the Council for Secular Humanism had the following press release:

Read the rest of this entry »

Back in 2005, a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in some controversial poses, including the most famous image of him wearing a bomb as a turban. This led to a load of riots and protests in the Muslim world, and more than 100 people died as a result.

Of course, the images were on the internet within hours, and so they were never going to disappear completely. The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia was unsure whether to allow them on their article covering the controversy. The subsequent debate went on for almost two years (officially starting on 11th April after Wikipedia removed the images).

However, two days ago the debate ended and the decision was made to reinstate the images in the article, but to tag them with an id so people can remove the images from their view of the page.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article

It’s a long deserved victory for those who support freedom of speech and expression, and another blow for people who think that religious rules should be followed by everyone. We live in a secular society, and freedom of speech should be respected, especially on the World Wide Web.

Thanks to Spread Rationality for the link!