The Right of Marriage

Inspired by The Rite of Marriage, on Columbia Faith and Values

So much talk about gay marriage lately with the SCOTUS hearings and this being Pride Month at MU, it is really a blast for someone like myself that loves talking politics, religion, and philosophy, as this can encompass all three. It can, however, be frustrating at times when one comes across opinions like those linked above. For those unwilling to stomach another bigoted editorial, the argument can be summarized to:

1. Marriage is only important in the religious sense.
2. My religion says homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong.
3. Gay marriage should not be allowed because it is wrong in the only important aspect of marriage.

Clearly, I don’t care what anyone’s religion says about homosexuality, there is nothing wrong with it, but I’ll set that aside for now, as I can deconstruct the argument without having to show why it is not wrong. It hinges on the idea that marriage is a solely, or at least foremost, a religious institution. Such a stance was decided upon by first consulting Merriam-Webster’s definition:

“a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>”

But, that included same sex marriage, so it was not good enough (although, the cited reason that it was disregarded was because it also said marriage was consensual and “that is not the case in all cultures, so there must be a better definition”). From there we naturally turn to anthropologists to see how they define marriage….Wait. What’s that? We went to Catholic doctrine afterward? But the MW definition didn’t say anything about religion or spirituality. It talked about contracts and legal recognition. Okay, well what did the Catholic version say:

“Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics”

I’m sorry but I fail to see how marriage is anything but a purely human institution. Currently only humans are capable of getting married or recognizing a marriage. This quote also does not explain what the “common and permanent characteristics” of marriage are. Luckily, the author agrees that this is also an inadequate explanation, although they accept everything stated. From here I’m sure we go on to the anthropologists or sociologist to figure out these common and permanent characteristics, right? NOPE! We turn to the Quran , The Torah (conveniently also considered canon in Catholicism), and the New Testament, where it largely details that marriage is between a man and a woman.

At this point, the argument is incapable of effectively being used to to explain why marriage should not be a right that is extended to homosexual couples. Marriage has existed long before these religions which makes them poor standards for deciding what is common and permanent about marriage. Additionally, this idea of “common and permanent” characteristics reeks of appeal to tradition, especially since no reason is given as to why such characteristics should be adhered to or even a good explanation of what they are. Finally, and most importantly marriage is not solely a religious institution in our culture. In fact, it need not require any religion whatsoever. A couple could simply have a marriage license signed by a government official and get the legal benefits. This is still referred to as a marriage, not some other term. If you want to use this argument to say that the Catholic church should not allow gay marriages, fine. By all means push the church further into irrelevancy. But with what has been provided here, there is no reason not to allow legal marriages for same sex couples recognized by the government. It does not hurt you, your church, or your marriage. You may think it is sinful, but you also think not being a christian is sinful, and you would not advocate for making it illegal to not be christian, would you? If not, then “because my religion says it is wrong” is not a good enough reason to make something illegal.

—————-

Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He interned with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY and was a volunteer Teacher/Counselor at Camp Inquiry. He is an activist for atheism, secularism, feminism, and LGBT issues.  He is in his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.
Twitter: @TonyLakey

New Pope, old ideas

I’m sure most of you have heard by now that the next Pope has been chosen. It’s this guy.

Photo credit: Natacha Pisarenko / AP

His real name is Jorge Bergoglio, and he came from Argentina. As Pope, he will be called Francis. And other than that, we don’t know a whole lot about him. He was discussed this morning on the Diane Rehm Show, and as I was listening during my morning commute I appreciated the insight of Father James Martin, an American Jesuit priest. The transcript of today’s show hasn’t been published yet, so I must paraphrase his comments:

‘Bergoglio is a conservative Catholic, so I don’t see him changing the Church’s policies towards gays or contraception.’

Fair enough. A little disappointing, but not surprising for the leader of an oppressive worldwide religious institution.

But then Martin goes on to stick his foot in his mouth, as religious folk are wont to do. Once again, I paraphrase:

‘But the Pope shouldn’t really be worried about social issues like that. Now is a time to bring the gospel to the people and introduce them to Jesus.’

Oh. Is that so? You’re kind of a prick if you think the head honcho of the religion that preaches love should ignore the suffering of the LGBTQ community, ranging from simple marriage discrimination to execution. Contraception was discussed in the context of financial inequality, but apparently the Pope gets to disregard the plight of even devout Catholic families with too many mouths to feed. Father Martin, if you really wanted to introduce more people to Jesus’ teachings of tolerance and support for the poor, you could start by following his damn example.

Besides dismissing the blatant opportunity to emulate the good deeds of your savior, you suggest that more people need to be introduced to Jesus. Really? Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world and has a vice-grip on social and legal policies in many regions, but you still think spreading it further is a higher priority than alleviating suffering? Either you lack the compassion you claim to hold so dear, or you’re stupid.

Not that it’s even the Pope’s responsibility to reach barbarians who haven’ t heard the good word yet. That’s what missionaries are for. And then local priests reinforce it. No, Francis will ride around in his Popemobile, trusting God to protect him with bulletproof glass and speaking Latin. He might announce that God spoke to him about those social issues we should be ignoring, but he sure as hell won’t be telling clergymen how to keep their parishioners in line.

On a rather tangential note, SASHA has been having our own Popewatch for the past several weeks, and I was really hoping we’d end up with this lovely fellow.

Photo credit: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images

This is Angelo Scola of Italy, and he has the coolest God-damned stick of any of the major Pope contenders. Sure, Francis has bling, but this guy knows where it’s at. Ah, well. At 71 years old, he’s five years Francis’ junior, so maybe he’ll be around for the next conclave.

Well, at least he’s not doing anything useless… wait…

Last week marks the end of an era: Pope Benedix XVI delivered his final public blessing, according to CNN Breaking News.

The Pope said he will continue serving the church by, according to the article, “taking up a life of prayer and meditation.”

Um… what?

How is this serving anyone or anything?

Meditative prayer has been linked to things like reducing stress and lowering blood pressure, but let’s not kid ourselves here: The Pope is not serving anyone by taking up a life of prayer. What is a life of prayer, anyway? That’s essentially saying, “I’m done contributing to the world.” There has never been a proper double-blind study that has shown any statistically significant effect of intercessory prayer. Not one.

At best, the Pope is no longer doing damage as leader of an organization which rails against condom use, abortion, stem-cell research, gay civil rights, women’s rights, etc, etc, etc.

Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, made an excellent point in a Huffington Post article that I think bears repeating: A new pope, regardless of whether he is more liberal or more conservative, will be a good thing for rational people. If the new pope is liberal, he will work to enact policy changes that are better for stem-cell research, AIDS prevention, abortion access, women’s civil rights, LGBTQ civil rights, and relations with secular people. If the new pope is conservative, he will drive even more “C&E” Catholics (Catholics who only care about their religion on Christmas and Easter) away from the Church and toward the wonderful world of reality in the 21st century.

Until next time,

Dave

Dave Muscato is the Public Relations Director for American Atheists based in Cranford, New Jersey. An atheism activist, blogger, and public speaker, he is also a board member of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday; twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard, and monthly or more on SkepticFreethought.com. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com

Follow me on Facebook
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to my YouTube Channel

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Breaking News: Pope Benedict XVI will resign on February 28

Hello all, Dave here.

This just in from the Wall Street Journal and AP:

Pope Benedict XVI will resign on February 28th. According to NBC World News, he “doesn’t have the strength anymore.” He is 85 years old. Here is the text of his speech about it.

There has been a lot of controversy over Ratzinger’s reign as head of the Catholic Church. Personally, I’m glad to see him go. Although he has said he is “deeply ashamed” of the church’s problems with pedophiles, he has not done enough/much at all to put a stop to it. Just earlier tonight I was having a conversation with a friend about these sexual abuse cases, making an analogy to restaurants: If there were a chain of restaurants in which some of the chefs were caught molesting customers’ children, and the restaurant chain’s response was simply to shuffle these chefs to other restaurants, there would be a mass boycott. The chefs would be immediately imprisoned and there would probably be threats on their lives. No one would ever eat at those restaurants again. But when it’s the Catholic Church, Catholics make excuses. It’s ridiculous.

Ratzinger was also a member of the Hitler Youth, although this was compulsory at the time and he was not a willing member.

Ratzinger is also a proponent of intelligent design, saying that humans are ”not the products of chance and error.” Good riddance. At least John Paul II gave credence to evolution.

One of these men will very likely be the next Pope. We’ll see what happens!

More to come as details unfold.

- Dave

If you like this post, please upvote it on Reddit.

Dave Muscato is the Kansas/Missouri-Area Volunteer Network Coordinator for the Secular Student Alliance. He is also a board member of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A non-traditional junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com

Follow me on Facebook
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to my YouTube Channel

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

The Vatican is losing the war, and they know it

If you like this post, please upvote it on Reddit.

Hello all, Dave Muscato here again!

According to a Washington Post article published yesterday, the Vatican is holding a closed-door conference February 6-9 to discuss “emerging youth culture.” They are concerned that they risk losing future generations to nontheism if they don’t learn how to get with the times.

The internet is absolutely butchering religion. Religious belief necessarily depends on ignorance of science, logic, reason, history, philosophy, ethics, and competing mythologies. It becomes very difficult for a pastor to get away with lying for Jesus, when anyone—especially young people—can whip out a smartphone and find real answers on Wikipedia faster than you can say the Lord’s Prayer.

There was a time not so long ago when young people wholly depended on their parents, teachers, and pastors for information about the world. If a suitable bubble is maintained, it becomes nearly impossible to break free once the indoctrination is set into motion. This is why many Christians and other religious groups isolate their young from mainstream culture. They publish and use their own textbooks. They homeschool and attend their own schools and colleges. They have their own museums. They have their entire own Wikipedia. They have their own YouTube. They have their own television networks, radio shows, musical genres, you name it.

These parents do this, even if they can’t articulate why, because they understand that a few hours on Reddit or YouTube is potentially all it takes to spoil a child’s faith in their parents’ religion. For some children who haven’t been fully indoctrinated, just learning about the very concept of atheism for the first time is enough to break the spell. It is vital, therefore, that religious parents quarantine their children. When this is not enough, they vilify atheists, supply misinformation (that we are Satanists, that we are immoral/amoral, they we hate God, etc), or in some cases even deny that atheism exist (e.g. they claim that we know God exists but deny it).

We are winning. Unless parents are willing (able?) to keep their children away from Google, it is only a matter of time before the truth about religions—that they are manmade, that they are a substandard source of ethics, that they are factually incorrect—becomes mainstream. One in three—one in three!—Americans aged 18-29 report no religious affiliation. This is not to say they are all atheists, of course, but these people are informed about religion, science, history, and so on. This is a progress. This is a step in the right direction. And the Church knows it. And they are afraid.

Until next time,

Dave

P.S. I know that not all religious parents quarantine their children in this way. Some even go out of their way to expose their children to other points of view and other cultures. Those that do end up with children who have much more liberal beliefs, and this is no surprise. I maintain that if everyone waited until adulthood to pick up a Bible for the first time, people would consider it laughable that anyone actually believes it’s true. As the saying goes, like circumcision, if religion were only offered to adults, no one would be interested! Thanks for reading.

Dave Muscato is the Kansas/Missouri-Area Volunteer Network Coordinator for the Secular Student Alliance. He is also a board member of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A non-traditional junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com

Follow me on Facebook
Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to my YouTube Channel

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

A Funny Argument About Voter ID Laws

Hi, I’m Seth. I heard a funny argument the other day. I ride the bus to campus, and all of the bus drivers employed by this company are libertarians, so I always get to hear libertarian talk radio on the bus. That’s where the funny argument came from.

The argument was about voter registration laws. Specifically, it was trying to defend the requirement that voters have a state-issued ID. Here’s how it went:

1. Voter fraud does happen, and it’s a crime.
2. If we can prevent a crime by legislating a law, then we should.
3. Requiring state-issued IDs for voters can prevent voter fraud.
4. Therefore, we should require state-issued IDs for voters.

I know what you’re thinking. Wow! This, from a conservative? Let’s go through it slowly, and see why this is so funny.

The host put forth a lot of effort in establishing premise 1. He even had a liberal listener call in and argue with him so he could yell about this one. He said that the debate thus far has centered on the amount of voter fraud, which is irrelevant. Democrats have said that voter fraud does not happen as often as Republicans claim, so we don’t need an ID law. The host said this doesn’t matter, because voter fraud does happen, even if only in very, very, very, very small amounts. He kept asking his liberal caller if voter fraud happens, and the liberal caller said, “I don’t know,” or “Probably a little.” This made the host mad, and he said the caller didn’t have the testicular fortitude to admit that it does happen, at least a little bit. Therefore, premise 1 is true.

Another way he could have established the truth of premise 1 is by referring to an actual legal case documenting voter fraud. But he didn’t do this, so I’m not going to bother. I don’t want him to say I lack testicular fortitude, so I’ll agree with premise 1.

Premise 2 is really funny because it’s obviously false. One way to see how false it is is by thinking of a crime that could be prevented by a really outrageous law. For example, we could prevent speeding by outlawing automobiles. We could even prevent drunk-driving by outlawing automobiles. This is starting to sound pretty reasonable! According to premise 2, libertarians should be clambering to outlaw automobiles. But they aren’t.

They aren’t applying premise generally because they know it’s false, and they only want to pretend it’s true in this one particular case, because they need it for supporting the conclusion they want. Imagine if they used this premise when thinking about extreme gun control laws. Outlawing all guns could prevent gun-related homicides. Therefore, we should outlaw all guns. Libertarians don’t reason this way because they know premise 2 is false. More things need to be considered before enacting legislation. You have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

For the automobile case, it is clear that preventing speeding is not a big enough benefit, given the extreme disruption to society such a law would cause. It just wouldn’t be worth it. Most people think the prevention of drunk-driving is also outweighed by the cost of the law. That’s why we don’t outlaw automobiles.

For the gun case, it would be pretty good if we could prevent all gun-related crime, but libertarians object on the grounds that it would be infringing on our rights, so no benefit could be big enough to outweigh that.

That is interesting, because it mirrors the voting case. Lots of poor people without IDs have the right to vote. Many of them have never had an ID, because they’ve never owned cars. Preventing them from voting unless they go get an ID is infringing on their rights. This should make libertarians really mad. They should be against this law, based on their own political philosophy. Premise 2 is contrary to the facts, and to what they believe. That’s really funny.

Premise 3 is also really funny, because it is false for the same reasons that libertarians say gun control laws wouldn’t work. I can almost hear Glenn Beck responding to premise 3, “Oh, require IDs to prevent voter fraud? Please, tell me more about how criminals don’t know how to get fake IDs.” We are already talking about a very small number of people who intend to commit voter fraud, and if they really wanted to, they could easily get a fake ID. Lots of college kids do it all the time.

If you imagine that this law had been proposed by the Democrats, then you can probably predict exactly how conservatives would object to it. They would object to premise 2 because voter ID laws infringe the right to vote of those who don’t already have IDs. They would object to premise 3 because criminals don’t follow laws, so the only people being prevented from voting are law-abiding citizens who don’t have IDs. These are actually pretty good reasons to disagree with the law, and they are fully consistent with conservative political philosophy.  It makes you wonder why they even like this law.  Oh, because it will prevent lots of poor people from voting, and poor people are likely to vote for Obama.  Now I remember.

I think this argument is so funny because it shows us how willing we are to ignore what we believe in order to defend a position that we want to be true.  Political conservatives aren’t the only one’s who do this, but they are the funniest example of it.  I hear the radio host say things on Wednesday that directly contradict what he said on Tuesday, and he pretends he doesn’t realize it.  That’s really funny.

_________________________________________________________________________

Seth Kurtenbach is a philosophy Master’s student and computer science PhD student at the University of Missouri.  His research focuses on applications of formal logic and game theory to questions about knowledge and rationality.  He is growing a mighty beard, in order to increase his philosophical powers [EDIT:  The beard is currently shorn].  Feel free to contact Seth at seth.kurtenbach@gmail.com with inquiries about philosophy, logic, guest blogging, or visiting to give a presentation!

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Zachary Ernst,  Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick, Rationally Speaking.

On Outing Anti-Gay Bigots That Are Secretly Homosexual

As you may or may not already be aware, Jonathan Merritt, the prominent anti-gay blogger, was recently outed by Azariah Southworth, a gay blogger that identified as an agnostic . Merritt had this to say in regards to his relationship with Southworth:

In 2009, I was contacted by the blogger [Azariah Southworth] in response to an article I wrote about just that–that Christians must love people who experience sexual brokenness. We corresponded several times by email and text for a couple of weeks, some of them inappropriate. When I was traveling through a city near him, we met for dinner because we’d corresponded so recently. As we were saying goodbye, we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship. I was overcome with guilt, knowing I had put myself in an unwise situation. We never saw each other again and we ceased contact after a period of time. (Joe.My.God.)

Now I am not normally one that would support outing individuals, however I am currently of the stance that it was acceptable in this instance. Furthermore, I believe it is acceptable to out anyone that run a blog purveying an anti-gay viewpoint. If someone is actively perpetuating the system that makes gay people’s lives miserable, then outing them completely negates their ability to spread their bigotry.

It is unfortunate that this will likely cause Merritt to lose his job and whatever following he had. He will have to find a new skill and/or spread a new message. But honestly, I think that is a good thing over all. It will be a difficult time for Merritt, which is a situation I would rather have avoided. However, even if he had not been outed, I would have wanted him to stop spreading hatred and to take up alternative employment. Preferably doing something that actually benefits society, so I consider this a positive.

—————-

Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is currently interning with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY. He will be starting his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia in August 2012, majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.

The SSA has met its $250,000 match challenge – with 11 days to spare!

The Secular Student Alliance, with whom I’m interning this summer, received a very generous challenge match offer from Jeff Hawkins (inventor of the Palm Pilot & Palm Treo) and Janet Strauss. We intended to meet this challenge by August 1st. As of 6:40 PM today, July 20th, a final donation of pushed us to $250,015.39, meaning the SSA will receive the $250,000 doubling!

I can’t begin to tell you what amazing news this is for skepticism and the secular movement as a whole. Some figures show that 1/3 of people under 30 doubt the existence of a god, and this is especially true for students. The SSA’s work in helping students find a sense of community, engage in activism, find a secular outlet for service & volunteer work, and a secular place to educate themselves and the public is second to none. I am so inspired every time I think of the SSA and the work they are doing.

If you’re not familiar with the SSA, please check out their website. Get to know the staff—they are AMAZING people—and like their Page on Facebook. Look at the services they offer to student groups—both high school and college—and the library of resources, as well. I speak from experience in saying that I know that our student group would not be nearly where it is without the SSA’s direct help in every step along the way.

The work the SSA are doing is so important. If you care about secularism and secular issues, become a supporter. As secular activists, this is where our attention should be, and I join the rest of us at the SSA in thanking you for being behind us.

Follow @secularstudents on Twitter for the latest updates! And if you’re not yet a member, join us!

Keep up the great work, everybody!

- Dave

Dave Muscato is the 2012 Writing Intern for the Secular Student Alliance in Columbus, Ohio. He is also Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com. Opinions posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of MU SASHA, the Secular Student Alliance, nor the Humanist Community at Harvard.

Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Are you scientifically literate? A quiz from CSM

Hey all!

The Christian Science Monitor has posted an interesting quiz about scientific literacy. It’s really more about scientific trivia, but nonetheless, I had a good time taking it. I got 41/50, but I guessed on a few, and really appreciated my background in Latin & Greek! Haha. There are quite a few questions about cosmology, particles, chemistry, and some other great topics.

Are You Scientifically Literate?

William & Mary professor Elizabeth Harbron displays vials with merocyanine and rhodamine dye in her lab in Williamsburg, Va. (Steve Helber/AP) – from the quiz page

Post a comment and let us know how you did!

Until next time,

Dave

Dave Muscato is the 2012 Writing Intern for the Secular Student Alliance in Columbus, Ohio. He is also Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com. Opinions posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of MU SASHA, the Secular Student Alliance, nor the Humanist Community at Harvard.

Follow me on Google+
Follow me on Twitter

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Why it is Important to Discuss the Issues We Disagree About

This post is in response to Dave’s Dear Secular Community: Lest we forget, we’re on the same side.
—————–

Lately in the atheist blogosphere (I can not believe I am using that word non-ironically now;  I think I just threw up a little) there has been much conversation about instituting harassment policies at conferences.  That is actually only tangential to what I want to discuss in this post.  What I actually want to discuss is the idea proposed in Dave’s blog post, including the tweet.  The tweet (by Florida State Director of American Atheists, and Vice President of Outreach for Secular Woman, Bridgette Gaudette) read:

“Dear Secular Community: We agree on 95% of the same stuff, can we focus on that and not the 5% that we disagree on?!”

There are a few issues I have with this idea, as well as the suggestions that come of the application of this idea.  Firstly, on the most basic level, let me grant the arbitrarily decided on percentages and even then most of that 95% that we agree on is going to be things like gravity, that humans require oxygen, that 2+2=4.  There is nothing to discuss with these issues.

I am not setting up a straw-man argument. I realize that what was meant by the original comment were issue about church-state separation, science education, LGBTQ rights, etc.  However, I think it is important to point out that that would not make up this full 95%.  Most of what we agree on we have no need to discuss because everyone else agrees with it as well.  Then there are the “movement issues” that most of us agree on within the movement, but that a large part of the rest of society does not.  These get a lot of discussion, as we want to convince those that disagree of our viewpoint in an attempt to mold society into one that shares our values.  This is precisely why these things need to be discussed in the movement.  The only way to promote positive change in society is by discussing the issues with the rest of society. The only way to promote positive change within the movement is by discussing the issues with the rest of the movement.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea; the whole “let’s be friends” mentality. And I completely agree with it. However, I think we need to tread carefully lest we enable the silencing of complaints and discussion.  We can, and should, discuss these ideas respectfully.  There should not be long-standing feuds and resentment due to discussion of these issues and we should certainly not have different camps forming.  For Thor’s sake people, we have escaped this herd mentality once, lets not jump into it again.  So I certainly sympathize with the desire to get along, but I think that can still be done while discussing important issues that people within the movement disagree upon, and I do think it is necessary.  The complaints about not wanting to read about it on the blogs anymore are not at all helpful.  For one, you have the ability not to read them if you do not care about the issue being discussed.  There are titles and tags that can help you with this endeavor if skimming the article first to too time consuming for you.  Secondly, and more importantly, these comments seem to me to be showing quite a bit of privilege.  ”This does not affect me personally, and I don’t want to feel like I am doing anything wrong, so I don’t want to read about it anymore.”  This may all be true, but it does affect other people within the movement, and they just as much of a right as anyone else does to try to keep people safe and treated equally.  If you disagree with arguments being made in favor of some of these issues, then engage in the discussion, but to say that we should all stop talking about it is edging towards censorship and is not at all productive.

—————-

Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is currently interning with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY. He will be starting his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia in August 2012, majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!