The Merriam-Webster dictionaries that we have in this house describe faith as a belief not supported by fact. When this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest knew that faith had to do with subservience to the Anglican Church which had as its head the King of England. And so they set off to establish this country as a secular one. In spite of what southern politicians may tell you and in spite of what Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice, may allege, this is not a Christian country. It is not a Jewish country nor is it a Pentecostal country. At heart, the United States is a secular country.
What disturbs me at the moment is the tendency by religious organizations, primarily Christian, to turn their beliefs into laws. Thus when a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, if she lives in one of the majority of states in this country she will have no option but to carry the child to term. Similarly, if two people are deeply in love and wish to be married, and if they are of the same gender, they will find that their marriage is banned by about 45 or 46 states of the 50 that comprise this country. This law comes about as a result primarily of Christian beliefs that only males and females may contract marriage. Prohibitions of this sort fly into the face of the reason this country was established in the first place. No one is contending that we should all be free to do whatever we like regardless of the expense to others.
In this essay, I propose to comment on four restrictions that originated with religious organizations that resulted in laws or customs that now apply to every citizen. I have in mind abortion, same-sex marriages, stem-cell research, and divorce.
I am unable to think that any woman would regard abortion as a birth-control device. I would suspect that most abortions come about because of the financial circumstances faced by the woman and her partner of the opposite sex. Beyond that, I am painfully aware that cases of rape and incest take place. The law of the land in the case of Roe v. Wade is that a woman’s choice will be honored if she desires an abortion. In point of fact, abortion is under attack in most states, so much so that few facilities are provided. If the woman resides in New York, there are several places where she may take her case. If, on the other hand for example, she resides in the great state of Arkansas, she will find that no facilities for an abortion are provided. Lacking the money to travel to New York or Chicago, she will be forced to carry the child to term. This is particularly regrettable in cases of rape, incest, and deformities that are noted in the child before birth. But this is one case where law and custom defeat the forces of logic and good sense.
For those who might be interested in the opinion of an aged essayist, I would say that I am fully in support of a woman’s right to choose. I hope you will notice that the people who make the laws and customs outlawing abortion are almost invariably male. Generally speaking, males are not subject to the inequities of unwanted pregnancies. I strongly believe that if the male side of the equation were subject to pregnancy, there would be a quick change in the law and custom.
Now having said what we have had to say about abortion, let us turn to same-sex marriage. The forces of religion generally frown upon such unions. Recently, however, there have been some liberalizations flowing from such places as the great state of Iowa. It is possible that New York state will soon permit such unions as will, in time, the state of New Jersey. But be that as it may, in about 45 states in this great union, same-sex marriages are prohibited.
As in the case of the abortion issue, I might offer a personal observation or two. I am attracted to my wife as a heterosexual man should be. It is entirely logical for me to believe that a homosexual couple could be attracted to each other. Are we to contend, foolishly, that attraction is permitted only in heterosexual relationships? Of course not. Homosexual couples have long and lasting relationships. I do not understand what brings about homosexual behavior, but I am willing to believe that it is possible for one man to be attracted to another similarly situated man just as I am willing to believe that a lesbian woman can be attracted to another of the same gender. So we start with the thought that in homosexual relationships that result in marriage, there could well be a long lasting attraction.
My second thought would be that it is utterly stupid and foolish to contend that people become homosexual through some failing of their own. They are born that way and can do nothing about it, even if they wanted to.
Now let me inject another personal thought. The Carr family carries the genetic makeup that causes glaucoma. So far, it has embraced in its vile clutches four generations of this family. My grandfather became blind from this ailment. My father lost his sight at age 65, while my elder brother lost his sight somewhere in his seventies. My sight disappeared when I was 83, and I am sorry to report with great discomfort that I have passed the gene on to my daughter. I can do absolutely nothing about the existence of glaucoma except to treat it. Similarly, I would suggest that men and women who are born with homosexual tendencies can do nothing about it and should make the most of it. My final thought is that I have no prejudice whatsoever against homosexuals, male or female. I would advise those who have such prejudices to admit their error and join the rest of us in the real world.
Now that we have dealt with abortion and same-sex marriages, let us go to stem-cell research. I do not pretend to know anything about how stem-cell research is carried on. I know only that it has the promise of lifting some of the most baleful illnesses from mankind. Laura Bush, the former President’s wife, was sent out to make a political speech not long ago in which she contended that stem-cell research had produced no results. Obviously, it is in its infancy, and with the restrictions placed on it by her husband’s administration, it is difficult to make it work.
One of the illnesses that it is hoped will be alleviated is Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s struck three people who were close to me. They were my elder brother and two neighbors. Each one of those men was confined to bed for a significant period of time. During that time, they suffered bed sores, catheters, and other assaults on their dignity. Anyone who has observed the travails of those dying from Parkinson’s could not be called a human being if he insisted, as the Bush administration did, on restricting stem-cell research. I tend to forgive Laura Bush because she was reading a speech written for her by someone in the Republican political organization. I simply hope that Parkinson’s or some other disease that might be cured by stem-cell research does not happen in the Bush family.
Finally we come to the issue of divorce. As far as I am aware, divorce is permitted legally in all 50 states of the American union. But in religious circles, there are those that frown on a divorced person. Again, a personal comment. No one can ever know what takes place in a marriage. What hurts and slights may take place are generally never recorded. There comes a time when love no longer exists. When that occurs, there is no point in keeping a marriage between two people who dislike each other together. And it is at this time that the rest of us must permit civilities to extend to those who have suffered the indignity of divorce. Divorce is not a happy circumstance. It marks a failure. But those who are able to make a new beginning should be greatly encouraged.
In each circumstance that is described in this essay, it is to be noted that organizations based upon faith have at one time or another attempted to legislate their views into laws affecting the rest of us. For my own part, I am very much in debt to the Jewish faith which seems to tend to its own business. If the Jews were as piously exuberant as Protestants and Catholics who support such issues as banning abortions, same-sex marriage, and stem-cell research, we might find it illegal or immoral to be uncircumcised. Furthermore, if the Jews were as inclined as the Christians to enact their beliefs into law, we might see the end of the shellfish industry as well as those who raise hogs for a living.
Finally, it is a good thing that my mother could not make her beliefs into laws and customs. She believed, for example, that anyone who did not undergo total immersion upon baptism would be denied entry into Heaven. She was also a chewer of snuff. If her beliefs were enacted into law, there would be one hell of a rush toward the Baptist religion by folks whose teeth were stained by chewing snuff.
Well, there you have my thoughts on abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, and divorce. The predicate of this essay is that I deplore faith-based religions’ attempting to turn their beliefs into laws. Those laws affect the rest of the citizens of this county and are to be resented.
Under the Obama administration, I suspect that there will be many fewer attempts to turn faith-based beliefs into laws. Faith has a place in American society but it should always be remembered that this country is a secular union. Secularists understand the desires of those who subscribe to faith-based groups. But it is the secularists who are intent upon preserving the rights of women and gay and lesbian folks. In that case, my vote will always be for the secularists.
E. E. CARR
April 20, 2009
Essay 379
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: This is a pretty edgy essay for Pop! Really hit several hot-button issues which, annoyingly, are still hot-button issues. Thankfully gay marriage is getting legalized in more and more states by the month now, which is great news. The southern states are still a long way from it, but no gay people want to live there anyway. Hell, no people in general want to live there anyway. The American South is largely just a bad place to be.
Stem cells have been out of the limelight a bit though recently. I’m not sure why — I’m guessing it’s either a legislative or technological wall but your guess is as good as mine.