Secular Sanity

By MarieAlena Castle

It was good to see the letter from Marcy Brown regarding the Bible and gay marriage because it brings the issue into focus. Yes, the Bible definitely opposes it—and that is precisely why the voters of Minnesota should not. We have a secular constitution that keeps religious dogma and government operations separate, for good reason. It prevents a lot of divisiveness and social chaos (the kind we are suffering from now with the religious right’s politicized extremism). Amending the state constitution by writing the Book of Leviticus into it violates that separation, just as writing Sharia law into it would. From a secular perspective there is no valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage. On the contrary, there are very good secular reasons to legitimize it. Religions that follow the Bible have complete religious freedom to continue to oppose same-sex marriage for their members, but not for everyone else.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle

Jason Lewis is exactly right about the unfair tax exemptions for nonprofits (“One’s break is another’s tax burden,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4 Mar). We all pay more because they pay nothing. However, there is little chance of getting relief for the burdened. This is because religious groups are also designated nonprofit and it’s all or nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1970 Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York decision ruled 8 to 1 that religious organizations can be tax-exempt. This was extended to all nonprofits because not to do so would be unconstitutionally discriminatory.

What is often overlooked about the ruling is that it did not say (as many suppose) that churches must be tax-exempt, only that they could not be denied tax exemption if secular nonprofits were exempt. States were free to tax or exempt all or none. The states chose to exempt all. Because both groups, secular and religious, want to keep their exemptions, it is unlikely that any fair-taxation effort can be effective against that combined force.

It appears that Lewis would like to deny exemptions only to the unworthy (in his view) secular nonprofits. Unworthiness certainly does exist, but it abides in both religious and secular nonprofits. There is no hope of ever determining where the unworthiness line would be drawn, so the burden continues.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle
[Sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune today. As usual, don't hold your breath waiting to see it in print.]

Jason Lewis is exactly right about the unfair tax exemptions for non-profits (“One’s break is another’s tax burden” Mar. 4). We all pay more because they pay nothing. However, there is little chance of getting relief for the burdened. This is because religious groups are also designated non-profit and it’s all or nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1970 Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York decision ruled 8 to 1 that religious organizations can be tax-exempt. This was extended to all non-profits because not to do so would be unconstitutionally discriminatory.

What is often overlooked about the ruling is that it did not say (as many suppose) that churches must be tax-exempt, only that they could not be denied tax exemption if secular non-profits were exempt. States were free to tax or exempt all or none. The states chose to exempt all. Because both groups, secular and religious, want to keep their exemptions, it is unlikely that any fair-taxation effort can be effective against that combined force.

It appears that Lewis would like to deny exemptions only to the unworthy (in his view) non-profits. Unworthiness certainly does exist, but it abides in both religious and secular non-profits. There is no hope of ever determining where the unworthiness line would be drawn, so the burden continues.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle

[I sent this to the Minneapolis Star Tribune but it was not published. (A couple of good ones were, however.)]

Anthony Morley asks whether contraception should be covered by health care insurance (Feb. 13), since it only prevents conception and does not treat or cure any illness or disease. Yet childbirth, which also does not treat or cure any illness or disease, is routinely covered. The reason (which should be obvious but apparently is not) is that pregnancy and childbirth are inherently life threatening physical conditions. Without good pre-natal and obstetrical medical care, the death rate for women is 1 in 16. Controlling pregnancy through contraception can be critical to preserving a woman’s health, sometimes her life, and often her ability to function productively in society. It is necessary medical care, not an elective.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena
[I sent the following to the Minneapolis Star Tribune in response to the opinion piece referenced.]

Here are civil answers to the questions Dan Nye asked about homosexuality (1-14-12: “Six Questions for supporters of same-sex marriage to ask—forthrightly”)

1. Our ancestors were wrong about many things, such as slavery and subjugation of women. We abandoned those ideas because they allowed the mistreatment of people for no worthwhile purpose. That change was innovative and progressive. We are now abandoning the mistreatment of homosexuals for the same reason.

2. Our sexual organs (the external ones we control) exist for several functions, only one of which is reproduction. They certainly exist for pleasure, and so are used primarily for that. The male penis has three functions—urination, pleasure and reproduction. The female clitoris has only one function—pleasure. Homosexuality squares with all of those functions (although reproduction is usually—but not necessarily—achieved indirectly through sperm donation).

3. The human sex drive, being stronger than needed for reproduction (thus suggesting its primary human purpose is pleasure), can indeed be misused. It is more extravagantly misused by heterosexuals, especially in sexual exploitation of women, but can be misused by homosexuals as well. Controlling one’s sex drive is a common issue for everyone, regardless of orientation.

4. Yes, adultery and pedophilia are morally wrong because they harm people. Bestiality? We’d have to check with the beast in question as to any harm done. It’s just disgusting (or possibly hilarious) to most of us. Yes, those behaviors are probably natural for those who engage in them, but we need to prohibit only those that are harmful. Adults can deal with adultery on their own. Pedophiles, however, have to find a way to control that tendency or we lock them up to ensure the safety of our children. But homosexuality? What is there about it that is harmful when it’s between consenting adults? All it really amounts to is scratching an itch. Heterosexual behavior offers a lot more opportunities for immoral (harmful) behavior.

5. When has homosexuality harmed society in any way? It has never been or ever will be prevalent because it involves only a small percentage of the population, is not catching and can’t be taught because it’s a natural orientation, just one of nature’s variations. Heterosexuality has caused far more harm by subjugating women and overpopulating the planet.

6. Some religious people may believe homosexuality leads to perdition, but that is no basis for discriminatory laws against homosexuals. All such laws would be a most egregious unconstitutional establishment of religion with no valid secular justification whatsoever. The Book of Leviticus may have a place in some churches, but there it should stay. It does not belong in our laws, and certainly not in our state Constitution.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle
[Letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune]

It is with a cold chill that I read Stephen Heaney’s defense (“Freedom of conscience is under assault,” Nov. 19) of the Catholic Bishops’ campaign claiming they are the victims of religious discrimination because the new health care reform regulations require all of the insurance plans to cover contraceptives with no co-pays, as well as sterilization. They see no reason why coverage should be mandated to deal with something that is not a disease but a “natural condition.”

Are they so deep into misogyny or so willfully ignorant that they do not see the mindless cruelty their “freedom of conscience” inflicts on women? For the government to grant religious facilities a “conscience clause” is to deny their non-Catholic women employees and health care or welfare recipients a service for which they have a right and a critical need. Pregnancy may be a natural condition and not a disease, but it is far from harmless. It is inherently life threatening. Without good medical care 1 in 16 women die from its complications. Obstetrics/gynecology is not only a medical specialty but has the highest medical malpractice insurance fees because of the many things that can go wrong with this “natural condition.” Ob-gyn doctors, as a routine precaution, consider the onset of labor as a disaster waiting to happen.

There is also such a thing as coerced pregnancy from rape and incest and psychological abuse. Religious institutions often provide social welfare services for these women under contract with the government. If the Catholic bishops have their way, there will be government-funded denial of contraceptives to prevent a coerced pregnancy, as well as the “morning after” pill following such coercion and, of course, denial of an abortion, even in serious life-threatening circumstances. Yet, according to the Catholic bishops, it is their religious freedom to brutalize women that is under attack. This is not a freedom any government should support.

Women need contraceptives to protect their health and wellbeing, as well as the wellbeing of their families. Without them, they have no effective way to control their lives. This is legitimate health care that cannot rationally be rejected for insurance coverage by government – certainly not as a preferential favor for religion. If religious facilities choose to reject such coverage for doctrinal reasons, they should also reject any government funding that supports their other social services.

No Comments yet »

[Letter to Minneapolis Star Tribune]
By MarieAlena Castle

The Catholic bishops in Minnesota are planning an all-out fight to pass the amendment against same-sex marriage. Whatever happened to the First Amendment? It prohibits an establishment of religion. Putting sectarian religious beliefs into law is an establishment of religion of the most egregious kind. It not only violates the other clause that protects the free exercise of religion of other-believers, it hurts a lot of people besides.

There are only two questions to ask: 1. Does the amendment put a religious belief into law? Yes! 2. Is there a valid secular justification for doing so? No! There are only religious arguments to be made for the amendment. The “secular” arguments are just plain silly and without factual support. The amendment is a clear violation of the First Amendment. It must be defeated if our basic freedoms are to be protected from further erosion by the religious right.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle
[Letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune]

According to Archbishop John Nienstedt’s letter on Oct. 8, the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage does not rely on religious beliefs but on anatomy. Since male and female genitalia fit together, and fitting them together often results in offspring, that must be nature’s purpose – it’s sole purpose. And because there are offspring there must be marriage. Because there is marriage, government has the duty to oversee and protect that arrangement by limiting it to one man and one woman. (Lots of non sequiturs here.) As Nienstedt says, the Church “finds its logic in the complementarity of the human anatomy, as well as the male/female psyche and in the propagation of the human species.”

What he means by the male/female psyche in this context is anyone’s guess. If it’s the emotional aspect of sexuality, that psyche seems to be operating rather nicely for same-sex couples as well. As for anatomical complementarity, people of all sexual orientations have found that there is more than one route to complementarity. If nature was purposeful and wanted sex to be limited to one form of male-female complementarity, there wouldn’t be all these other anatomical options available – some even useful for preventing unwanted propagation.

One is almost tempted to think nature actually is purposeful and finds it useful in natural selection terms to provide a variety of sexual work-arounds to enable us humans to control this whole sexual orientation/anatomical/psyche/propagation business to our advantage.

And speaking of sexual purposes, I don’t recall ever reading any Vatican pronouncements about the female clitoris. Unlike the male penis, which has three distinct and useful purposes, the clitoris has only one – pleasure. It has no complementarity function. Yet there it is, conforming fully to natural law, doing nothing but providing the one thing that has historically made the Vatican nervous – sex-related pleasure. No wonder there is silence on this. The Catholic hierarchy needs to study a good sex manual and something on sexual evolution before they expound on a topic they obviously know nothing about.

No Comments yet »

By MarieAlena Castle
[Letter to Minneapolis Star Tribune]

I am all for shared sacrifice if we get rid of the freeloaders. I will gladly pay more taxes if they do not include making up for revenue lost by unjustified property tax exemptions for nonprofit organizations, both secular and religious, from Planned Parenthood to Catholic Charities. Although some provide needed social services, most if not all do it under government contract, making them essentially businesses. Some churches provide no significant social services at all. Profit making businesses also provide goods and services under government contract, and they pay property taxes. Nonprofits that lease their property actually do pay property taxes, since the tax liability is included in the cost. Multi-million-dollar mega-churches with high-living clergy hardly need a tax exemption handout.

Do nonprofits do some good? Yes, but so do many businesses, as anyone facing a car breakdown or plumbing disaster knows. Do they teach values (especially said of churches)? Yes, but so do families – the primary source of moral guidance – and they are not tax exempt.

Tax-exempt property in Minnesota is valued at $84 billion. Tax it all (except government buildings, of course.) Nonprofits with income primarily from donations will be reimbursed for their property taxes by donors who feel their work is worthwhile. If it is not worth donor assistance, it is not worth a tax exemption either.

1 Comment »

By MarieAlena Castle
[Letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune]

Michael Musielewicz (Sept. 19) says critics of the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage should either accept the Church’s moral consistency or argue against natural law. The problem here is that the Church’s “natural law” doesn’t exist in reality.

We do have a natural law, but it is simply a description of how nature works, which we get from observation and testing. Sexuality, driven by evolution’s profligate and varied processes, is not rigidly heterosexual, as can be observed throughout the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is just one of the harmless variations. The case for same-sex marriage rests firmly on this observable law of nature.

There is also an erroneous assumption by those who believe in a natural law given by a supernatural lawgiver that the way nature works reflects a purpose. Since heterosexual sex usually produces offspring, that is assumed to be nature’s purpose. But nature has no purpose, only consequences, some we perceive as good, some bad, depending on their effect on us. People deal with these consequences to create purposes according to their needs, accepting some, rejecting others. The consequences of sex include pleasure, the transmission of microbial life (disease), and the transmission of human life. So what purpose do we create from these consequences? Simple observation shows the primary purpose humans create is pleasure. The transmission of disease and human life are side effects, with disease fought off relentlessly and human life usually welcomed (but sometimes not).

Until humans figured out where babies came from, sex most certainly was naturally directed by sexual orientation, solely because it was enjoyable. Once paternity was understood, the picture changed drastically. Although the history of marriage shows many forms and rationales (including same-sex marriage), an overriding reason for its institutionalization was male interest in controlling women to ensure no-guesswork paternity and, therefore, inheritance, economic aggrandizement, and ruling authority. Women became men’s property, as noted in the Ten Commandments and enforced by all religions until recently.

With such abuse of women diminishing, marriage essentially legalizes a sexuality-based bond without regard for procreation. Although this remains essential for some religions, the interests of religion and government are different. Religions are free to set their own rules, but government is concerned with issues beyond procreation, such as financial and personal responsibilities, inheritance laws, medical care and visitation rights, child custody, and so on. It is socially advantageous to provide these benefits, through marriage, for loving, committed adults of any sexual orientation. It also conforms to the natural law.

No Comments yet »