ajlopp.com

NYTimes reports British gay/lesbian soldiers cause very few problems

This powerful article, published May 21 by the New York Times, came to my attention via the email-list at gayindy.org. Even though it doesn't have a local hook, I've decided to post it.

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur

The British government apparently is being careful not to influence the DADT debate in the US, but results such as this will be difficult to suppress.

The ID vs. Darwinism Debate: more silly than 'pulp fiction'

The entry below appeared as an "Our Readers Write" feature in the June 15, 2005 issue of the Corydon Democrat.

By Allen J. Lopp

Chad Phillips' submission regarding Intelligent Design vs. evolution (May 25, 2005) was disappointing at best. If Phillips is unhappy with the quality of the debate, he wrote nothing to improve it. Phillips criticizes columnists for not including facts and arguments in their commentaries, then fails to include any facts and arguments himself. Then he mudslings about other people's mudslinging.

Finally, perhaps his most unforgivable charge is that pro-evolution journalists are "cornering the market on propaganda." Please! Propaganda instead of fair, constructive debate seems to be the order of the day from all sides on all issues. Phillips denounces those who treat Darwinism as "sacred dogmas that cannot be questioned," yet I am confident that if I were to discuss with him, say, Biblical literalism vs. historical-critical exegesis, I'd find that Phillips has a few "sacred dogmas that cannot be questioned" of his own.

Finally, he attacks "liberal" journalists by mentioning Clarence Page, Ellen Goodman and Frank Rich in particular. Page is a black journalist, Goodman is a pro-feminist woman journalist, and Rich is an openly gay journalist. Is the teaching of evolution really the only issue here that has Phillips steaming? This submission gives me an excuse to present my own thoughts on evolution and Intelligent Design.

The biggest problem facing the promotion of ID is that it's largely viewed as the Genesis story in disguise. The fact that ID is championed by traditionalist Christians doesn't help this. Positioned as they are, the proponents of ID find — rightfully, I believe — that the weight of showing that ID is not "Genesis-lite" rests squarely upon their own shoulders.

If the pro-ID people were more intellectually nimble, this argument would be easy to make. When they do indeed start with Genesis and then tweak this and re-word that, their opponents have an easy accusation that ID promotes one particular religious viewpoint at public expense. But the truth is that the notion of divinity in the forces of creation is not specific to Judeo-Christianity. It is also present, although sometimes less explicitly, in Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Native-American indigenous religions, and even some secular philosophical writings, Aristotle not being the least.

Because the idea of divine creation is part of many worldviews, it is easy to argue that presenting theism and atheism as alternate philosophical positions, to be given equal consideration by the probing individual, ought to be neither an intellectual problem nor a problem in church-state separation. The First Amendment requires that government not promote a particular religion, not that it pretend that the entire arena of religious thought itself does not exist.

But an even more fundamental point is this: Evolution and ID do not need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they can be blended together quite well. This was explored over 25 years ago in one of my favorite books, "The Road Less Traveled," by M. Scott Peck, M.D.

Peck is a psychiatrist and psychotherapist. He writes as both a scientific thinker and a spiritual thinker. A major theme of his book is the integration of science with religion and spirituality. In the final part, Peck explores the nature of divine grace. Historically, the religious have considered grace to be a beneficent expression of God's love for humanity. Since Peck defines love as the will to nurture oneself or another to grow spiritually, he suggests that God's love and God's will for us to grow toward Him are one and the same. God's grace to humans is His nurturing of that growth.

Peck then wonders if the very development process of life — evolution — may indeed be further evidence of God's existence, love and grace. He proposes that evolution is miraculous, specifically because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (an argument I personally disagree with, but I won't go into that here). Still, the notion that the guiding finger of God is in the genetic mutations that produce a more survivable creature instead of a less survivable one is a possibility that any open-minded, theistic-friendly scientist might entertain.

Moreover, pure evolution theory asserts that mutations occur randomly. Yet there are points in the evolutionary phylogenies (i.e., evolutionary developmental histories) of many species where it was required that several mutations occur simultaneously, or near-simultaneously. The likelihood of one particular mutation may be small, and the likelihood of multiple specific mutations occurring together is exponentially smaller still. Yet evolutionary biologists have identified instances in which these clusters of mutations must have occurred, sometimes with odds that have been virtually infinitesimal. When such extremely unlikely occurrences happen again and again, they do invite wonderment about whether an unseen guiding force is at work within the evolutionary process.

Thus, in my mind, the evolution vs. Intelligent Design "brou-ha-ha" is even worse than "pulp fiction." It is an ugly and unnecessary tempest in a teapot.

First, keep this mostly intellectual debate intellectual, instead of degenerating into emotionalism, political nastiness and propaganda spewing. Ours is a pluralistic world, and both sides need to learn how to co-exist with the other. If certain flavors of Christians would simply advance beyond a need to dictate to all of society their rigid dogma that the Genesis creation story be interpreted literally (when Jesus says, "I am the vine, and ye are the branches," does any evangelical insist that Jesus was literally a grape vine?), the public arena would integrate evolution into the already overwhelmingly popular conviction that God is the ultimate force that created and creates all things, including all living things, evolution or not.

Similarly, pro-atheistic scientists must surrender an equally ridiculous dogma: that the only scientifically acceptable position is the assumption of atheism. Science does not demonstrate that there is no God; science merely is silent on the issue. And in a world of scientific skepticism, it is just as valid to question the non-existence of God as the existence of God.     ■  ■  ■

A Little 'Rose Garden' Statement of My Own

This writing appeared as an "Our Readers Write" feature in the July 5, 2006 issue of the Corydon Democrat, a weekly newspaper serving Harrison County, Indiana and surrounding areas.

By Allen J. Lopp

Early in June President Bush trotted out to the Rose Garden and dusted off the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Constitutional proposal that would prohibit any state from formulating marriage as anything other than one man and one woman. Republicans, who often frame themselves as the champions of states rights and freedom of religion, are schizophrenic on this one. We must question even George W.’s dedication when he only mentions the FMA during election years. His wife Laura did not help this confusing picture when she told Fox News Sunday on May 15, “I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate.”

Not that my bully pulpit can be sensibly compared to the President’s, and not that I think this turkey called FMA is actually going to go anywhere in Congress; still, today I feel called to counteract President Bush by issuing a little Rose Garden statement of my own. (Actually, I am on a patio surrounded by my potted tomato plants. Close enough.)

Same-sex attraction is not as bizarre as the fundies would like us to believe. Despite the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the US Department of Defense estimates that about 5% of our military personnel, including the ones in Iraq, are gay or lesbian. Similarly, the British Ministry of Labor states that about 6% of the UK labor force is gay/lesbian.

Applying similar percentages to Harrison County’s population of 40,000, plus info from psychologists that the ratio of homosexual men to women is about 2:1, leads us to project that there are about 1,466 gay males and about 733 lesbian females in our county.

These 2,200 or so individuals are spread across all stages of life. Some are working age, some are in our retirement homes, some are toddlers and haven’t much of a clue about themselves yet, some are in our high schools and grade schools. A few are “out” but I speculate that many are largely closeted. Some have same-sex life partners, some are single, and some are in heterosexual marriages. (Those of you who had the requisite gonads to go see Brokeback Mountain got to see how these marriages often turn lifeless or disastrous. Since I said “requisite gonads,” Charles Ewry, obviously I’m not talking about you.)

As much as the media mentions “gay marriage,” the debate that the First Lady suggested does not appear to me to be happening. The FMA may be stalled, but in state after state, constitutions are amended, often as political slam-dunks. Indiana is in its own amendment process, and it would be tragic for this amendment to go into force out of sheer lack of vocal opposition.

The specific wording of the Indiana amendment bill prohibits not only same-sex marriage per se, but also any legal recognition of same-sex relationships under any term. Thus, it outlaws “civil union” as well. The exact wording is dangerously ambiguous, banning any other legal status that bestows the “incidents of marriage” ---  but what exactly are the “incidents of marriage”? Nowhere in law, state or federal, are these incidents clearly enumerated, leaving this phrase subject to court interpretation.

While conservatives decry “legislating from the bench,” they simultaneously promote legal wording that virtually requires judges to do exactly that. Go figure. Interesting to note that Ohio voters passed equally ambiguous wording in November 2004. The enacted Ohio amendment bans any relationship status that, quote, “intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

It wasn’t long before protection from domestic violence was ruled to be a characteristic of marriage. A ruling by Judge Stuart A. Friedman of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas reduced a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge because he was not married to the woman he was living with and assaulted. A similar ruling was made by Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Lauren C. Moore. Ohio now has similar uncertainties regarding child custody, as well as health insurance when provided to same-sex couples by public universities. These are perfect examples of how sloppily worded amendments can have confusing and inane consequences.

So as a gay man, born and raised here in Harrison County, I find plenty of political reasons to speak out now. But my speaking out is not just political; ultimately, I experience it as a requirement of faith. When I see the Bible misused to justify prejudice against loving relationships between men and between women --- just as it was once misused to justify the dehumanization of African-Americans --- the matter becomes one of spiritual duty. To refuse to acknowledge a person’s most cherished relationship --- and to refuse even basic matters such as inheritance, co-ownership of property, child custody, and hospital visitation rights --- is uncivilized, inhumane, mean-spirited, and immoral. Moreover, the protection of “traditional marriage” requires no such ugliness. There needs to be some legal way to bestow upon these relationships the status of family, for in reality, that is exactly what they are.

There may be only a tiny fraction of my 2,200 or so gay brothers and sisters in this county who are willing to stand up for themselves and generate the vocal opposition needed. But I know you are out there, and it is to you I now plead. Your moment is now. Time is of the essence. Speak out, just as I now have.                   ■  ■  ■