Hypocrisy

A report on a new Bahamian law which was aimed at stopping marital rape (a law which has not yet been passed) has been making the rounds as outrage grows over the comments made by men cited in the report. Often using the Bible as proof that men cannot rape their own wives, some of the comments are straight out the Stone Age.

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can't be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said 'I do,' so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn't rape," he said.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man's body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

"If a man wants to have sex with his wife he is supposed to [have sex with her] regardless of what the circumstances [are]. I don’t see why he should be charged with raping his own wife, she is never supposed to say no," said Ms. Clarke.

"If I were married and my husband wanted to have sex with me I wouldn't stop him, [because] I'm not supposed to, even if I was tired or feeling sick, I wouldn't tell him no."

There are some rational responses in the article, thankfully, but yet again, the Bible is used as a primary source for institutional evil, in this case belief that a husband cannot rape his wife. Does the Bible provide some people with inspiration for good? No doubt. But it also clearly provides some people with inspiration for evil.

If you look at the map above, you can see the countries which have outlawed marital rape (shaded in pinkish purple). What is striking is just how many places in the world still allow husbands to rape their wives. Many of these nations are undoubtedly religious and use scriptural doctrines to deny that marital rape can even occur. I don't know what China's excuse is, nor why many Eastern European nations have failed to enact laws protecting wives (what's up, Greece?). Regardless, the idea that wives are owned property may not be derived from scriptural sources, but this notion has absolutely been preserved in the literal interpretations of various scriptural passages, leaving millions of women the world over forced to endure marital rape. Welcome back to the Stone Age.

What follows in the blockquote is a statement made by an Army Officer concerning his experiences with religion in the military, which was originally posted on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches (and I first heard of it from a post by Dave G). We've seen a lot lately about the religously-imposing nature of the modern US Military, from the Air Force imposing Christianity to West Point and the Naval Academy being home to similar problems. What this anonymous officer has to say is not new nor is it unique, but it should raise serious red flags for anyone who believes that freedom of religion has any meaning at all. I want to repost the message in entirity since it is important as a whole and because I believe doing so is consistent with the author's intents.

I am a United States Army Captain. On a spring day at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York several years ago, I took a solemn oath to support and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic as an officer in the United States Army. I took a legally altered oath which omitted the words "So Help Me G-d." When I submitted my first signed copy, with those words neatly crossed out and initialed, I was informed that it was not valid. When threatened with the prospect of not graduating and being refused a Commission, I stood by my refusal to sign the Oath as it read. I could not in good conscience do so because I was deeply disturbed by fusion of religion and military service. I could not reconcile the suspicion that the Oath itself was establishing religion in a way which contradicted the spirit of the Constitution with the intensity of my commitment to defend same. I believed, and still believe, that my personal metaphysical experience of the universe must be separate from my role as a military professional. In the passing years, I have come to the unsettling conclusion that the sentiment in the Oath which so disturbed me is a practical reality in my United States Army.

Based on my alteration of The Oath, you may be tempted to label me "non-religious." I find this odd, because religion has broadly influenced my life and values. I was born into a mixed Jewish and Catholic family. The family I belong to now is mixed Buddhist and Agnostic. I attended Catholic high school where I excelled in my religious studies. I was one of a literal fistful of non-Christian students voluntarily attending a religious institution, and I never once felt pressure to conform. In our mandatory religious classes we studied Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Quaker, Mormon, Jewish, Protestant, Wiccan, and other religions and we were taught that mere "tolerance" was abhorrent and basic "acceptance" was the absolute minimum standard. I learned during my second semester as a Plebe (freshman) at West Point that even lowly tolerance is a privilege not to be bestowed on all Soldiers in the United States Army.

During my second year at the West Point, my Squad Leader for summer training expressed disapproval on numerous occasions with my being Jewish, and, during one mission, he grabbed my MRE (a military meal) as we sat down for lunch and handed me another. He ordered me to eat the pork chop and I reminded him that I refrain from pork for religious reasons. He told me that I could eat the pork or eat nothing. One of his peers, a female Jewish cadet, urged me to obey him and not to make him angry; I declined. The next day, my cadet Platoon Leader presented me with a written counseling statement detailing my signs of "anorexia" and a "troubling" refusal to eat which was detrimental to my health and indicative of "incapacity for leadership." I was filled with righteous indignation. I went through the Cadet and Commissioned Chain of Command and my rebuttal culminated with a conversation with the Active Duty Major in command of the summer training. When I explained the events in detail, he told me that my Cadet Chain of Command was right to be concerned, and spoke words I will never forget: "the Army is not in the business of catering to people like you." Those words have haunted me throughout my career as an Officer. They were the turning point for me--when I finally understood the message several of my leaders had been expressing to me all along: the Army has no place for people like me: dissidents who stray from the unofficially mandated military religion; conservative fundamentalist Christianity.

Throughout my service, I have been inundated by reminders of the tenacity of this "Army Religion". On a regular basis, I am confronted with being forced/coerced to partake in involuntary prayer. At change of command ceremonies, promotions, retirements, banquets, mandatory Officer/NCO call, the list goes on. What do I do when this happens? I see no reason why I should have to bow my head to participate in this involuntary prayer. But if I stand at attention, I am still showing that I am subject to religion in my professional duties. I have discovered that any other movements or fidgeting are viewed as disrespectful to those who wish to pray. Army leaders send the message out that prayer is voluntary, and that Soldiers do not have to participate. As a Platoon Leader serving in Iraq, my Squad Leaders and I were ordered to attend a mission briefing with the Battalion Command Team's security squad. The briefing concluded with a Soldier being ordered to lead the group in prayer. I was disturbed because I knew that there were Soldiers on this team who did not share the specific, sectarian Christian religious beliefs being expressed. I was standing at the edge of the formation, and chose to quietly walk away. I was later counseled by my Commander and informed that the Battalion Command Team had heard of the incident and recommended I be relieved from my duties as Platoon Leader. My Commander explained that, by not bowing my head in blatantly Christian prayer with the others, I was sending a message that I "want my Soldiers to die." These words penetrated my core. What leader can imagine a worse accusation? Who wouldn't doubt herself or himself when confronted with this message? The threat of being relieved was completely overshadowed and, again, I was an outsider, incapable of leadership because I refused this unconstitutional perversion of Christianity synonymous with the Command.Could I not, would I not be an effective combat ready officer/leader/warrior without first very publicly and repeatedly demonstrating my singular loyalty to Jesus Christ? Could I not lead brave military women and men into combat for my country without being an avowed fundamentalist Christian? I stopped practicing my own religion; I disassociated myself from Soldiers who were similarly persecuted; I lost hope.

Who can you talk to about something like this? Certainly not my Chain of Command- my immediate supervisor/rater and senior supervisor/rater had threatened to relieve me. Obviously my counseling statement wouldn't address mandatory prayer, but what did it matter what it said if both my rater and senior rater agreed I was "unfit" and there were no other Officers who I worked with or around? I later contacted the Equal Opportunity Office to make an official anonymous report about the noxious, compulsive Christian, command climate. Shockingly, the NCO I filed the report with wasted no time in contacting my Battalion Commander directly, in complete violation of the privacy regulations and guarantees of protective anonymity attendant to such hyper-sensitive filings. I later became a member of an Installation Inspector General Team and observed firsthand the impotent, incapacity of the IG to affect any meaningful change. The difference between lower enlisted Soldiers and myself is this: they suspect that they have nowhere to turn in order to escape this unbearable religious persecution--in contrast, as an officer, I do not suspect. I know.

Looking back over all my time in the Army and at the United States Military Academy at West Point, I know that there were so many good memories, so many wonderful opportunities, and so many outstanding leaders of character I met along the way. Yet, the time is painfully tainted for me by a long shadow of bitter religious persecution by zealously righteous Christians essentially universally extant throughout the United States Army command structure.What has most surprised me about this struggle is how utterly powerless I am as a Captain- a Command level Officer- to stand up for my rights and for the Constitution and Country I love. I am a great Soldier, a great leader, and a great person, and I am a victim. It is not comfortable to admit one is a victim; I believe that admitting it takes a certain type of personal strength. The first day I met my current military superior/rater, he was playing Christian gospel music in his office while he called me in to talk. Perhaps it was an innocent oversight on his part, or perhaps it is another hint of the sinister nature of the current "Army Religion". There is no safe way to find out. My experiences have shown that the inundation of invitations for fundamentalist Christian prayer and fellowship, "spiritual growth" and "moral development" that target fellow Soldiers tends to thinly mask an undeniable and comprehensive underlying propensity for aggression, hatred, and ambition to subjugate the United States Army to an official religion; fundamentalist Christianity. The result for the American military is a total destruction of esprit de corps, teamwork, morale, good order and discipline. The result for the fundamentalist Islamic enemies we fight is an immeasurable bonanza of emboldenment for their recruitment, propoganda and insurgency efforts to maim and kill our soldiers down range in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was there. I saw it. I lived it. I am still living it.

When Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation describe this catastrophe of fundamentalist Christian usurpation of the command and control of our armed forces as a "national security threat of the gravest magnitude", they are precisely correct. It is injuring and killing our brave military members, specifically. It is desecrating the magnificent Constitution we swore an oath to, generally. And it is destroying our military's solidarity of purpose and ability to accomplish The Mission, completely.

Oy. Literally.

For anyone interested, a couple of links. First, check out the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (and the list from the maaf of actual Atheists in Foxholes, contrary to the incorrect common wisdom). I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to a talk given by former Army Captain Jason Torpy at the 2009 Secular Student Alliance conference a couple weeks ago and I strongly urge supporting this vital group's efforts. Second, join the Freedom From Religion Foundation which, in 1999, erected the Atheists in Foxholes monument in Lake Hypatia, AL. Co-President of FFRF, former evangelical Christian, and author Dan Barker was also at SSACon09, and his group is strongly supporting efforts to remove religious bullying in the military and politics.

A Sudanese woman facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public made her first appearance today in a court packed with supporters, in what her lawyer described as a test case in Sudan's decency laws.

There were chaotic scenes as Lubna Hussein, a former journalist who works for the United Nations, attended the hearing wearing the same green slacks that got her arrested for immodest dress. Indecency cases are not uncommon in Sudan. But Ms. Hussein has attracted attention by publicizing her case, inviting journalists to hearings and using it to campaign against dress codes sporadically imposed in the capital.

The case was adjourned as lawyers discussed whether her status as a UN employee gave her legal immunity.

After the hearing, defence lawyer Nabil Adib Abdalla said Ms. Hussein had agreed to resign from the United Nations in time for the next session on Aug. 4 to make sure the case continued. "First of all she wants to show she is totally innocent, and using her immunity will not prove that," Mr. Abdalla told reporters. "Second she wants to fight the law. The law is too wide. It needs to be reformed ... This is turning into a test case. Human rights groups will be watching this closely."

Insert fake shock here. Yet again, a conservative Christian who works constantly to force his unscientific and ineffective abstinence-only views is unable to hold himself to his own moral propaganda.

Meet Tennessee state senator Paul Stanley. He's a solid conservative Republican and married father of two, who according to his website is "a member of Christ United Methodist Church, where he serves as a Sunday school teacher and board member of their day school." (...)

Stanley recently sponsored a bill designed to prevent gay couples from adopting children. And when a Planned Parenthood official recently sought his support for family planning services for Memphis teens, Stanley told her, according to the official, that he "didn't believe young people should have sex before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to him, and he wants to promote abstinence."

So far, so far Republican. But you can see where this is going...

In a sworn affidavit, a Tennessee state investigator has said that Stanley admitted to having a "sexual relationship" with a 22-year-old female intern working in his office, and to taking nude pictures of her in "provocative poses" in his apartment.

Bigot. Hypocrite. Conservative Christian. Another morality-pusher who is utterly incapable of leading a moral life himself. What sickens me is, according to Christian doctrine, all he has to do is repent and (re)accept Jesus as his savior and he'll 'get in to heaven'. Where is the justice in that? Where is the disincentive? Where is the fairness to those who trusted him not to cheat? To lie? To fornicate outside of marriage? To not be a fucking hypocrite? Christianity is the ultimate Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card. Screw up big time? It's ok, just ask Jesus for forgiveness and you are welcome back into the fold of hypocrisy and unaccountability. No need to actually worry or care about the damage you've caused in this life because you'll be singing with the angels for all eternity in the next. Personal salvation is so fucking selfish...

The TPM author notes that Stanley has a history of immoral behavior.

Late Update: It gets worse. In 1994, Stanley's first wife, Judy Martin, filed for a restraining order against him, charging that he had physically assaulted her three times. She wrote: "He was going out the door to leave our house and he hit me with a tremendous blow and then he proceeded to turn and run away from me outside the garage to the street." Stanley and Martin divorced the following year.

According to the Nashville Post, Stanley met his current wife, Kristi Stanley, soon afterwards, while both were working for Bill Frist's U.S. Senate office in Memphis. She was working as -- an intern.

Classy.

According to James Randi Educational Foundation blogger Jeff Wang, a Euless, Texas Denny's offered a 10% discount and a 10% donation to the church of any customer who attended that church. When Wang asked how a non-believer might take advantage of the offer, the Denny's crew was stumped. (see the flyer)

ME: I'm wondering how the millions of people like me who don't attend church can take advantage of this offer.

MANAGER: I'm sorry, you can't. It's for people who go to church.

ME: With this promotion, Denny's is encouraging people to go to church. Is that right?

MANAGER: No, it's just a way to bring in more business.

ME: How is this different from offering a discount to white people?

(I'm aware that there are differences between racial discrimination and religious discrimination, and this probably wasn't the wisest thing to say. However, it is what I said.)

Wang followed up with letters to Denny's corporate offices, including an assertion that the practice may violate 1964 Civil Rights Act: Title II.

A bit ago, he was contacted by Montreal freelance writer Josef K. Radomski, who brought some history of the problems of religious-based discounts.

I've been following your story about Denny's on Twitter today and just saw your Swift post. It spurred me to put my old journalism hat on and do some research on other cases like this, given this is a serious issue. I don't know what the outcomes were, but here is some raw material for you: (...)

The Southland Church in Valdosta, GA has a promotion on its website offering a 15% discount at specific Papa John's location with their church bulletin. (...)

Meanwhile, the King, NC Chamber of Commerce is promoting a special at the Tokyo Japanese Grill and Sushi where a church bulletin gets you 10% off your order

PS: I don't think you overreacted in any way.

Another example of 'morality' from a conservative Christian. Why is hate so important to your own selfish salvation?

A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner who refused to marry a same-sex couple has lost his appeal of a human rights ruling. (...)in a 39-page decision dated July 17, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Janet McMurty dismissed Nichols' argument, concluding that the human rights tribunal was "correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required."(...)

He told the tribunal that the Bible directs him to believe that "God hates homosexuality."

Nowhere does the bible say 'God hates homosexuality'. There are passages against homosexual sex, but there are also passages against eating pork, or working on Sabbath. I absolutely guarantee that this guy does one or both of those things which 'God hates'.

Again, selective interpretation of scripture to back up beliefs he wants to hold. The Bible can be used to justify anything, so why is it that conservative Christians always seem to use it to hate other people? So Christian of you...

The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral was, as we see in the... passages from St. Paul, based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

(previously posted on FB, resulting from this article about the Catholic Church excommunicating people involved with helping a 9-year old rape victim obtain an abortion, and a debate I had recently with an in-law. I thought you all might enjoy. )

I just want to say a few more things about this 'repugnant' (as Arianna rightly described it) decision by the Catholic Church. I quote:

"“The law of God is above any human law,” said José Cardoso Sobrinho, the archbishop, who argued that while rape was bad, abortion was even worse."

This...

This is why literal interpretation of religious documents is dangerous, cruel, and utterly evil by your own definitions. The Bible is pretty clear about rape: it is perfectly fine in many situations. Slavery too, should we start literally interpreting the commands about slavery?

You choose to interpret some scripture this specific way because it is what you want to believe, not because you are literally interpreting every verse in the Bible.

To use your literal interpretation of religious texts to punish a group of merciful people who helped a battered young girl in a horrible situation because YOU decide abortion is worse than rape.

And then I look at your Bible and I see why. Rape is ok.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." (ie they were told to rape, pillage, and plunder in God's name... lovely)

Zechariah 14:1-2: "Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. " (take these other men's wives, please! seriously, I'm God, ignore that big Commandment that said not to, these guys aren't your neighbors...anymore)

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." (The rape victim is forced to marry the rapist and live with him forever? What kind of 'satanic' lunatics were these guys?)

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (nice, so if you kidnap a woman and let your penis do the talking, make sure to treat her like she's worthless as well -- classy.)

Now, if you want to argue that if the Lord orders it, it isn't rape, then you are sick. Get help. Seriously.

And what does this prove about abortion? That whatever passage you choose to interpret as making it your business to get involved in someone else's womb is by your own choice, not because you interpreted the bible literally.

If you disavow those passages about rape, you cannot claim you are interpretting literally.

I can go on all day with examples, there are hundreds of things I have no doubt you would all agree should not be interpreted literally.

You yourselves admit that the only important thing for a Christian to do is to repent and believe in the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, and you will get to go to Heaven.

So, your choice is 1) side with a young girl in a horrible situation with no good choices or 2) selfishly dedicate your efforts to securing your own place in the afterlife, enforcing your personal (and far from the only) strict interpretation of the Bible, and to hell with the girl and her heroes.

This is why we atheists call the religious right selfish. It isn't that they don't do great things for others, they do, and often. It isn't that they don't genuinely care for other people, especially family, because they certainly do so.

It is because when a right-wing Christian is faced with a choice between compassion and salvation, they pick the selfish one.

Disgusting.

And you claim Christianity is required for morality?

Stupid.

So, if you read this far, am I saying that you Christians personally reading this hold the same views as the Catholic leaders who handed down this tragic evil?

No, and that's the point.

Do you want the Catholic Church making that decision for your children? Whether they will go to Heaven or Hell based on their differing interpretation?

Of course not. And that is what everyone else wants as well. To make the difficult decisions on one's own without the decision being delivered from above through the hands of deranged, manipulative, and easily led men and women. Leave those decisions to the people involved, and get the fuck out of everyone else's business.

Literal interpretation is a fallacy. You pick and choose what you want to believe, then find passages justifying it.

Angry? Yeah, and you should be angry too. Question this Horrible Shit in your own faith before more 9-year old girls and their good samaritans are treated like vermin and cast aside as unworthy. Unworthy? I'd be honored to be disassociated with hatred and evil so obvious a caveman could see it...