Joe Perez

2009-05-05T13:37:00.001-07:00

As the TV pundits and bloggers announce the death of the GOP, it strikes me that their analysis is more shallow than they realize. I am beginning to think that it isn't the GOP that has died but the entire era of partisanship has entered critical condition and is on the verge of dying ... it's just that almost nobody has noticed it yet.

It isn't difficult to imagine what a reinvigorated GOP might offer that could springboard a new generation of political leaders into office: an emphasis on demanding individual responsibility and accountability yet ensuring an adequate government safety net, an emphasis on patriotism without xenophobia, an emphasis on pro-family policies without anti-gay or anti-choice policy rigidity, an emphasis on a realistic foreign policy without isolationism, an emphasis on balancing economic growth with a clean environment, an emphasis on a strong military but adaptive, an emphasis on strong borders but with a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, etc., etc.

There's no reason the GOP couldn't win by taking policy stands more or less the same issues that won elections for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but by offering an approach that rhetorically emphasizes precisely the opposite values. In short, Republicans might offer a style of governing that emphasis different priorities than the Democrats while offering essentially the same program: more agentic rather than communal, more masculine than feminine (to use traditional terms), more Agapic (emphasizing preservation of national identity) than Erotic (emphasizing transformation of national identity). There's permanent room for two contrasting styles of governance, and both styles have a valuable role in democracy. Both types are basically permanent features of politics because both types are permanent ways that human nature expresses itself.

On my reading, what's happening in the post-2008 election era is that some of the Democrats, led by Obama, have figured out that today's politics demands a non-ideological, genuinely post-partisan approach, but fewer of the Republicans have. Overconfident Democrats are liable to misread recent events as a vindication of a particular ideology; however, what seems to have been vindicated is an approach to governance that emphasizes a particular style (more communal, more transformative) as the right response now for this time. Democrats have a leader who has put a post-partisan style into effect, and it's resonating big time.

Obama may very well signal a permanent shift, but not a permanent shift to the Democrats. It may be that America is ready for a more integral, non-ideological politics, and once they've turned to a post-partisan mindset there's no going back. Democrats can only "lock" the vote if the GOP or a third party gives them an exclusive.

2009-05-01T11:34:00.000-07:00

Terry Mattingly,

You wrote, in part of an ongoing dialogue on the future of the religion beat in the mainstream media:

Professional reporters have salaries and some degree of independence. Laugh at
that. But it matters….You are, however, losing sight of the basic structural
reality of media and info.Let’s switch subjects. The Illinois legislature. Nice,
clean bunch of folks, right?You think life in Illinois will be better with only
15 full-time, local-beat mainstream reporters covering the legislature, not 150.
That’s your argument. That’s what you are saying.Right? And don’t tell me about
the media habits of 5 percent of highly motivated readers, such as yourself.
Tell me about PUBLIC DISCOURSE in this nation as a whole. Get real.

Your argument, the main one at least, is that journalism is important and valuable because of its investigation function. Journalists help to uncover government corruption, right? So there should be journalists on the government beat in order to provide a “check and balance” on government, which left on its own is susceptible to corruption, right? I think that’s a very reasonable and powerful argument. But …

It seems that the logical analog to your point about journalists on the government beat is to argue that journalists on the religion beat are needed to uncover abuses of religious authority (for example, by exposing the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal, the shenanigans of televangelists, exploitative cults, or new age gurus who sell snake oil). I think THAT is a very reasonable and powerful argument as well. Too bad you didn’t make it, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

Laying my own cards on the table, I’m an outsider to journalism, but with the experience of an independent writer who is one of those 5 percent of “highly motivated readers”. It seems quite apparent that the booming of digital media has fatally undermined the business models of all but the healthiest of traditional media, and the newspaper and magazine industry is going to continue to exist as only a ghost of its former strength. It seems we all are coming to an agreement that if journalism is to survive then it’s going to have to rely on new economic models.
My guess is that the most likely scenario is nonprofit models supported by a combination of public-private partnerships and wholly private philanthropic foundations. Except for those institutions that will be essentially outreach and PR arms of religious institutions, it seems reasonable to predict that the new institutions will likely focus on investigative stories. With limited resources available, funders are going to want the most bang for their buck. That will probably mean more coverage of scandals and exposes and fewer stories about interdenominational doctrinal differences. I’m not saying that news outlets will ignore breaking news, but certainly they will face pressure to be ever vigilant watchdogs.

Although varieties of religious journalism of many different kinds will certainly continue to exist, I suspect that if the religion beat survives in paid journalism, it will be at least partially state funded, for better or for worse. I would not be at all surprised to find checkboxes on tax forms asking taxpayers if they want $1 to be deposited into a fund for journalism. That’s a subject worth thinking about deeply, and beginning to work through the possible implications.

Furthermore, as the religion beat evolves, its mission will very likely be different from how it looks today. Rather than being agents of disseminating what is tantamount to pro-religion civic discourse (as GetReligion has long advocated), instead it could very well find itself tasked with the mission of being the chief public critic of misuses of religious authority.

I think these changes are not necessarily for the better or for the worse, but they are definitely worth discussing. My prediction is that the sort of journalism you advocate — long on stories respectful of religious differences but frequently snarky towards the secular, keenly interested in doctrinal matters, eager for long expositions of religionists’ self-reported reasons for their beliefs rather than psychocultural or sociological explanations, etc. — will increasingly be funded by groups with a vested interested in seeing forms of religiosity benefitting from such stories survive (that is, lots of mainstream churches). Those of us who are less interested in boosting up the very religious institutions that we don’t think should be boosted up will be more eager to fund organizations that will provide analysis and investigation from critical angles. Government’s role in funding religious journalism, I think, will be much debated.

2009-04-30T13:16:00.000-07:00

In a new post, John Derbyshire (as bradlaugh) attempts to make a "secular case against gay marriage". His respondents effectively demolish most of his arguments, I think, but they manage to leave one of them--the notion that philosophical anthropology (i.e., conceptions of human nature) requires opposition to same-sex marriage--more or less untouched. Here's Derbyshire in his own words:

(5) Human nature exists, and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely
malleable. Human society and human institutions need to ”fit” human nature, or
at least not go too brazenly against the grain of it. Homophobia seems to be a
rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only
minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in
disdain for “the man who plays the part of a woman.” There has never, anywhere,
at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e.
same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human
nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est)
to leave alone.

Where to begin? In a short response, I would emphasize the following main point: that Derbyshire is actually making two distinct arguments, both of which are fallacious.

(5a) that homophobia is an essential constituent of human nature, and therefore homophobia should be encouraged and reinforced by social institutions, and
(5b) that heterosexual normativity is an essential constituent of human nature, and therefore heterosexuality itself should be affirmed via heteronormative marriage.

In my recent (2007) book, “Soulfully Gay”, published by Shambhala/Integral Books, I argue for what theologians would call a gay-inclusive theological anthropology. In fact, in the past year, the book has been incorporated in the curriculum of some divinity school courses including some rather moderate to conservative institutions.

Basically I argue that human nature is not so much pliable as gradually evolutionary, consisting in both permanent universal structures and adaptive expressions. In other words, the essential attributes of human nature have undergone significant changes in how they are conceived in the past decades, and continue to evolve. In my philosophy, both “heterophilia” and “homophilia” are the “two prime directions of Love”, corresponding to Eros and Agape in the Christian tradition, and–more saliently for a secular audience--the principles of self-transcendence and self-immanence in systems theory.

A variety of human sexual variations (including heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality) are equally valid expressions of an underlying universal human nature. I base this view not primarily on a review of scientific literature regarding the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the animal world (biology) or cross-cultural comparisons of sexual behavior (anthropology), but on a philosophical analysis of human nature informed by philosophical and religious traditions. (Historically, the homophiilic traditions have been relegated mostly to esoteric aspects of those traditions and are only recently coming into greater recognition and acceptance.)

On this argument, replying directly to Derbyshire, I would say:

(5a) Homophobia may be a universal feature of human nature, but then so is heterophobia, and both of these are “sins”, or immature expressions of Agape and Eros respectively, and therefore irrelevant to the debate over gay marriage. Sins, including phobias and hatreds of any kind, should not be reinforced by social policy (which is not the same thing as saying that all sins should be outlawed in a pluralistic and Constitutional democracy). In secular terms, homophobia is a maladaption to the evolutionary principle of self-immanence, and therefore contrary to human flourishing and conducive to attitudes and behavior self-destructive to human societies.

(5b) If my argument in "Soulfully Gay" is more or less correct (or someone else is able to demonstrate that human nature includes homosexuality according to any reasonable conception of human nature), then Derbyshire's argument that human nature *demands* heterosexual normative social institutions is clearly fallacious — it “begs the question” of human nature. A more convincing argument would need, at a minimum, to engage a “pro-gay” philosophical anthropology with a convincing case that natural law required an “anti-gay” view.*

Note that neither my rebuttal in (5a) or (5b) requires acceptance of any particular religious conception of human nature. Although my book “Soulfully Gay” articulates a Christian (or, some would say, post-Christian) theological argument, the philosophical grounding is not tradition but rather the holonic tenets of the general theory of evolution as defined by systems theorists working at the interdisciplinary intersections of the human sciences.

Looking also at Derbyshire's observation that rejection of homosexuality has been historically associated with "unfairness" in attitudes towards women (what feminists usually call misogyny). Derbyshire seems to recognize the sexism of a "double standard" and he would certainly acknowledge that societal attitudes have evolved in substantial regards towards equality of women, so his opposition to gay marriage again sounds like special pleading.

And as for Derbyshire's point that historically societies have not approved of "egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding", perhaps then he is arguing that human nature requires that marriage be limited to persons of the same age and status? Otherwise, what could he possibly gain from nothing that in the past many socieities sanctioned marriage between partners regardless of age and status. Indeed, opposite sex marriage seems to have a long history of typically involving older men and young girls, and often requiring monetary exchanges to offset strong differences in status.

Moreover, there's no good reason to use so limiting a definition of "egalitarian" as does Derbyshire. He limits his definition of "egalitarian" to meaning only persons of the same age and status. But if your definition of "egalitarian" meant anything like that which most people today consider "egalitarian" (equal rights and responsibilities, equal opportunities, etc.), then you're going to have to look at least to the rise of modern worldviews in the West following the women's liberation movements. You would be hard pressed to point to a single historical instance dating from the horticultural or agrarian roots of civilization of any society tolerating truly "egalitarian bonding" between men and women. And if the "secular right" is going to allow their conception of human nature to go there, then their battle is truly lost.

I'm willing to defend my conception of human nature against Derbyshire's or any other traditionalist or "secular" opponent of gay marriage. Anyone want to seriously engage the debate?

* As of next month, my book will have been published for two years, and no rebuttal of its "pro-gay" philosophical anthropology has been forthcoming from either a religious or a secular perspective, and so forgive me if I consider my own view to have a certain highly tentative presumption of victory. Unfortunately for the purposes of theology, the book was marketed as a memoir instead of a work of philosophy. A bad marketing decision, I'm afraid, if it has caused the book to be overlooked by serious theologians.

2009-04-15T12:14:00.000-07:00

Gotta share this song, these lyrics. They're just too good.

Pet Shop Boys - "Integral"

If you've done nothing wrong
You've got nothing to fear
If you've something to hide
You shouldn't even be here

Long live us
The persuaded we
Integral
Collectively
To the whole project
It's brand new
Conceived solely
To protect you

One world
One reason
Unchanging
One season

If you've done nothing wrong
You've got nothing to fear
If you've something to hide
You shouldn't even be here
You've had your chance
Now we've got the mandate
If you've changed your mind
I'm afraid it's too late
We're concerned
You're a threat
You're not integral
To the project

Sterile
Immaculate
Rational
Perfect

Everyone has
Their own number
In the system that
We operate under
We're moving to
A situation
Where your lives exist
As information
One world
One life
One chance
One reason
All under
One sky
Unchanging
One season

If you've done nothing wrong
You've got nothing to fear
If you've something to hide
You shouldn't even be here
You've had your chance
Now we've got the mandate
If you've changed your mind
I'm afraid it's too late
We're concerned
You're a threat
You're not integral
To the project

Sterile
Immaculate
Rational
Perfect

(Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.)

2009-04-01T13:53:00.001-07:00

Hello!

My blogging has been non-existent this year because I've gone back to work. I've re-opened my freelance writing business called Writing Wolf (and its subsidiary, Seattle Resume Writer), and have been keeping busy with gainful self-employment.

My self-run small business was mismanaged the last time it was open and it quickly added to the statistics for failed business ventures. It is now under better management and it's thriving despite the economic environment. I can honestly say that learning how to plan, manage, and operate a business successfully has been the best and most effective shadow work I've ever done, resulting in the most dramatic changes in my everyday life ... but that's a story for another time.

I have a vision for my entrepreneurship: I am empowering myself and my associates to directly aid individuals in significant life transitions by offering our writing talents in service of their goals. My aim is to develop my leadership abilities so that I have the skills necessary to transform a one-man writing shop into a franchise that may shift the way that people buy and sell a wide range of writing and editorial services.

And while I'm placing my strategic vision in a wider context, I want to help define both theoretically and practically the various uses of writing as an integrative life practice that can produce heightened levels of self-awareness, release shadow energies and channel them effectively, and aid in bringing individuals into greater integration with their communities and societies. The work I'm doing is helping me to research my book in-progress called "Whole Writing".

As some of my readers know, I have occasionally published notes since 2005 on a multi-volume project code named "Kronology." The book is still very much alive, though it needs considerable work and will unfortunately not be ready for submission to a publisher for quite some time.

I believe that the world is ready for new ways of holding beliefs about God that are fully trans-rational yet attuned to the hidden logic available from non-rational sources including temporary states in which the personal self disappears. Kronology replaces in practice the highly conceptual and academic rhetoric of Integral theories (such as the AQAL Framework) with organic metaphors and visual representations derived from the natural history of the cosmos and evolving life on earth. The result, I imagine, may eventually become the cornerstone for an innovative universal systematic and liturgical theological framework.

Kronology is tough to describe simply. One way to look at it: it's a symbolic positional notation system that uses Integral theory to illuminate an extensive set of orienting generalizations useful for defining cross-cultural concepts of sacred time and space. What are "universal sacred time" and "universal sacred space"? As I conceptualize them, they are integrative life practices based on a new theological framework. Or: they are upper-left hand quadrant practices that require a lower-left quadrant framework and lower-right quadrant institutions that are not yet in place.

My hope is that my future books will help to create a dialogue that may enable these concepts to find acceptance and lead to new ways of sanctifying ourselves and our world (and re-conceiving "sanctification" itself). I'm sorry that this short description is vague, but it's the best that I can do in just a few sentences.

Thanks for keeping in touch. Although I'm not able to blog as regularly as I would like, I want to continue to use this blog space to keep in touch with my friends and loyal readers. I enjoy reading your e-mails and hope you're doing well, too.

Best wishes,

Joe

2009-01-02T13:05:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year

I'm feeling refreshed and inspired after a nice holiday season with my loved ones, and the celebration of a special anniversary with my boyfriend. Sadly he received news today of a death in his family, so he's away. I'm wishing him a safe journey filled with spirit, and send with him my best wishes for his family...

Beginnings are my favorite time, beginnings of virtually everything. I relish the excitement of preparing for something new, undertaking the new experience, and the satisfaction and challenges of implementation. Mornings are my favorite time of day; Mondays are my favorite day of the week; January, my favorite month. Beginning are often hard. Hard but worthwhile. New Year's is, therefore, my favorite holiday.

Resolving to do something concrete in the new year has only been a minor part of my New Year spirit. It's seems quite common that I'm undertaking some new challenge in many areas of my life all the time, so the notion of the New Year's Resolution seems quaint.

Nevertheless, I did set a few resolutions. The biggest: to get into the best physical shape of my life prior to my fortieth birthday in September. I also hope to chart new territory and achieving milestones in my work life, primary relationship, and in my contemplative writing practice. I also want to make, have, and be more conscious of money, simplify my possessions, get more organized, and move.

In my online writings, I expect some new themes will gradually emerge.

I want to:

keep writing blog posts under 100 words, but keep their tone light and non-"reactive";
write fewer blog posts over 100 words, but spend a bit more time editing each post;
run spellcheck at least once in a while;
write more short articles and op-eds for online and print publications (getting paid whenever possible) and do less unpaid blogging;
allow my blog posts to feed my writing of books, not divert my energy and attention.

My sense is that the New Year raises our nation and world's collective spirits to greater heights of consciousness. The media runs frequent stories regarding the highlights of the past year and it celebrates the pivotal persons and movements that shape our time. New laws take effect. New political leaders take office. Everywhere you look, here in the northern hemisphere, new changes emerge out of the deadness of winter, prefiguring the rebirths of springtime.

Beyond providing an opportunity to raise our individual and collective consciousnesses, my belief is that Spirit makes itself known through ever-arising cycles of light and dark, cold and hot, old and new, death and rebirth. Spirit celebrates not merely a new year, but a new marker in its differentiation and integration of all its parts. Ever-present as Light, Spirit's appearance changes into new colors of the rainbow, new energies of the electromagnetic spectrum, new tones in the music of life, and new altitudes and depths of consciousness.

Spirit's journey reaches previously uncharted territory constantly, its fabric unfolding new textures and patterns. Spirit's oneness is not unchanging, but everchanging--truly the river that cannot be stepped in twice. It is the Bridge of Light between Old and New that can only be crossed once, yet gifts us with constant reminders of where we have been and constant signs of the destinations we have yet to reach.

2008-12-20T12:33:00.000-08:00

Michelle Goldberg on Obama's choice of Warren to give the inauguration invocation: "Insulting your supporters to win the support of your opponents is no way to build unity."

In her persuasive words, here's why Warren is not the right signal of unity that we need.

Yet this is symbolism with real-world consequences and concrete implications. First of all, it reifies the image that Warren has been assiduously constructing for himself as “America’s Pastor,” a post-partisan and benevolent figure with a quasi-official role atop the nation’s civic life. When it comes to his public persona, Warren is something of a magician. He has convinced much of the media and many influential Democrats that he represents a new, more centrist breed of evangelical with a broader agenda than the old religious right. This is, in many ways, deceptive. Yes, Warren has done a lot of work on AIDS in Africa, but he supports the same types of destructive, abstinence-only policies as the Bush administration. One of his protegés, Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, has been a major force in moving that country away from its lifesaving safer-sex programs. He’s been known to burn condoms at Makerere University, the prestigious school in Uganda’s capital, and in his Pentecostal services, marked by much sobbing and speaking in tongues, he offers the promise of faith healing to his desperate congregants, a particularly cruel ruse in a country ravaged by HIV.

The truth is that the primary difference between Warren and, say, James Dobson is the former’s penchant for Hawaiian shirts. Warren compares abortion to the Holocaust, gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and social gospel Christians as “closet Marxists.” He doesn’t believe in evolution. He has won plaudits from some journalists for his honesty in forthrightly admitting that he believes that Jews are going to hell, but even if one sees such candor is a virtue, the underlying conviction hardly qualifies him as an ecumenical peacemaker. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Warren himself described his differences with Dobson as “mainly a matter of tone,” and was unable to come up with a theological issue on which they disagree.

If Democrats collaborate in positioning Warren as the centrist alternative to the religious right, they consign vast numbers of people, including many of the party’s most dedicated supporters, to the fringe. “It does strengthen Warren as kind of a new Billy Graham figure,” says the Reverend Dan Schultz, a United Church of Christ pastor and the founder of the progressive religious blog Street Prophets. That has especial relevance for Warren’s role in Africa, where a very conservative kind of evangelical Christianity is exploding, bringing with it virulently anti-gay politics. “What I have heard is that it will help Warren overseas,” Schultz says of Warren’s role in the inauguration. “He’s big into work in Africa. This will give him a lot of clout over there. Part of the reason this is kind of insulting for me is that Warren has supported some pretty awful people in Africa, including people who think homosexuals should be jailed.”

2008-12-19T18:58:00.000-08:00

Another deep thought. I stopped twittering (for now) because I just wasn't into it for many reasons. But I wonder if there's a tool that would convert my blog posts into Twitter measages and post them for me automatically, cutting off the post after the first several words and then automatically inserting a TinyURL for the full post? Not that I would use such a script, but I bet there are lots of Twitterers who would.

2008-12-19T18:54:00.000-08:00

Even when I'm broke I tip the barista at my favorite Internet cafe. But I don't tip the baristas at Starbucks. I'm not sure, but I assume that the cyberbaristas don't have health insurance (and I'm sure that they work for tips, not an hourly wage). Am I the only one who does this?

2008-12-19T18:51:00.001-08:00

My first impression of the new blogging style: How liberating. I don't have to follow any formula. I don't have to meet any expectations. I can just write. It's more fun. Already.

2008-12-19T18:50:00.001-08:00

I had no idea when I moved from Blogger to Typepad or Typepad to Wordpress that one day in the future I would move back to Blogger. Evolution really isn't a simple linear process.

2008-12-19T18:14:00.000-08:00

You can't tell if you're getting just the feed of this blog, but online at www.joe-perez.com/blog.htm this blog has a new tagline: "My thinking pad in cyberspace. Warning: experimental product."

And it has no cascading style sheet and a minimalist one-column Blogger template. I'm trying the look out.

I kind of like it.

Its simplicity somehow pokes fun of all the pretty and designed weblogs (like mine used to be in its many past incarnations). And to anyone who would think to ask: "Why don't you use a style?" the blog sort of says: "I AM using a style: the default settings of your own Web browser. If you think I'm not using a style it's because you haven't yet examined your own Web browser's Page Settings. YOU (via your chosen browser) have control over the typeface, color, size, etc. If you don't like what you see, I'm just reflecting your own style back to you..."

2008-12-19T17:53:00.000-08:00

Religion is a product. Religions are brands. Adherence to religion can be measured by brand loyalty. Religious education is advertising. Is it ethical to advertise to children incapable of making rational distinctions among competing brands? What a great question I never thought of.

Consider this perspective, offered by psychologist Gad Saad, Ph.D., in "The Brand Loyalty of Religion is Unsurpassed" :

One of the benchmarks for determining whether it is ethical to advertise to children is to ask the following question: What is the minimal age at which children have the cognitive capacity to understand the ulterior motives of advertisers, and accordingly to build cognitive defenses against such attempts? This approach is congruent with the work of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget who studied the cognitive developmental stages that children traverse. Whereas there are some cross-cultural differences in terms of the minimal legal age for targeting children, a common benchmark is eight years of age. Hence whilst it is unethical to advertise to young children who are otherwise cognitively unprepared to understand the persuasive intent of advertising messages, it is apparently perfectly moral and ethical to "advertise" one's religious beliefs to children shortly after they make their entrance into the world. It seems that divinely ordained products do not need to conform to the same ethical standards as those imposed on tobacco companies by the FTC, or those forced on movie producers (via movie ratings) by a committee mandated to enforce some fuzzy and ephemeral community standards.

Psychology Today also notes, somewhat ominously, I think:

It is interesting to note that the law stipulates very specific guidelines as to when individuals can have sex, can vote, can get married, can drive, or can drink (as they are otherwise cognitively and emotionally unprepared to partake in the behaviors), yet they are fully "prepared" to be exposed to religious narratives straight out of the womb.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but like the freedom to vote, imbibe, drive, and marry, it's not absolute. Thus, Saad indirectly raises another question: is there a legitimate role of government in regulating the age at which children are permitted to be exposed to religious narratives?

The going answer today is No. But in fifty years? I'm not so sure. I know plenty of adults who, retrospectively, wish they could have avoided indoctrination into their parents' faith.

2008-12-19T16:29:00.000-08:00

I join the Human Rights Campaign in petitioning Barack Obama:

In the first 100 days develop a plan to begin the process of eliminating the failed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

2008-12-19T14:09:00.000-08:00

The Philosophical Justification for Gay Marriage

Dear Andrew Sullivan,

Your reply to Joe Carter said:

This is not support for civil unions. It is a simple codification of laws that enable any two people to make legal contracts. Every heterosexual already has access to both civil marriage and any or all of these other potential relationships.

Yes, and you could have made the next step in the argument: Carter is explicitly attempting to redefine the term "civil union", and he's entirely unaware of the irony of his argument. Sure, unlike marriage, civil unions haven't been around for 5,000 years. But that hasn't stopped these "radical" religious thinkers from "trying to tinker" with this (admittedly nascent) social institution in a misguided effort to make it more inclusive. Defenders of the institution of civil union should not allow "social engineering" of this kind to deny gays and lesbians the fruit of our hard-won civil rights struggle (irony fully intended).

On a less ironic and more serious note, I think it's a positive development that Carter is trying to do just what you've been asking religious conservatives to do for years: articulate a positive vision for remedying the inequities experienced by gays and lesbians concerning marriage. So I give him an ounce of credit, even though he ends up proposing bad public policy.

Carter's religiously-based social conservatism is based on a version of natural law theory. He writes:

The State doesn’t create marriage; it only recognizes its value. It has no authority to redefine the term to make is more inclusive. Marriage should be reserved for the intimate, exclusive, sexually complementary relationship of a husband and a wife. The State also doesn’t create civil unions in their plurality of forms. But when stripped of any sexual connotation and reserved for binary, dependent, committed relationships, the State should recognize their value.

This is an erroneous concept of marriage we've been hearing a lot lately owing to Rick Warren's equally factually challenged statements to the media. When the natural law argument is deconstructed, what's left is for the religious conservatives to stop arguing about what's "natural" or what's "always been done", and start examining civil marriage from an empirically-based social scientific perspective (specifically, one in which myth-based teleologies are replaced by naturalistic teleologies such as Kant's). Only then will they begin to let loose their myth-based teleology and examine reality. Out of a more fact-based accounting of marriage will potentially come, I expect and have argued, a new teleology of civil marriage based on a new theological anthropology inclusive of all sexual variations as "natural" phenomena endowed with the ability to mirror the divine.

You can and should debate definitions of marriage with these myth-centered religionists, but ultimately yours and Carter's big picture visions of marriage and the social good are incommensurable. What's needed for the likes of Carter to change is nothing less than the evolution in the consciousness of the mythic-membership stage (what James Fowler calls the conventional stage of faith and Ken Wilber calls the amber altitude) religion to a higher level of faith, and that's probably not going to happen with the sort of rational argument you can put into a blog post.

In fact, from a scientific perspective, very little is known about how and why people sometimes evolve to higher stages of consciousness and sometimes they don't. That's a big subject (and one I've written about in my books), and it has definite consequences for the fight for gay equality: it leads the more integral thinker to a philosophy of activism based on what I call "inclusion through divergent rationales"; and based on that philosophy, I applaud your work on your blog and agree with your conclusion that Carter's perspective is flawed (but I disagree with your rationale).

My rationale is based on a vaguely neo-Hegelian (actually "Integral") concept of human nature (i.e., based on a systemic analysis of holonic tenets, and interpreted through the lense of Integral theory), leading me to a pragmatic approach inclusive of both Carter's and your approaches to same-sex marriage, each moments of an unfolding dynamic in a paradoxical, evolutionary vision of unchanging human nature. I realize that making my point so briefly puts me in your "poseur award" territory, but I guess that's a risk I'll have to take until you read Soulfully Gay and judge for yourself.

To put it simply, you say that Carter's proposal is wrong because it codifies inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I say it's wrong because it misunderstands human nature, and the role of homophilia (i.e., self-immanence) and heterophilia (i.e., self-transcendence) as constitutive tenets of all evolving things, and thus misunderstands both heterosexuality and homosexuality, and thus it codifies not merely inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but a limitation on the full expression of human personhood and integral community; your proposal--equal marriage rights for same-sex couples--is a step towards the emergence of healthier persons and communities, but it too is grounded in a partial and therefore inadequate view of what's really going on here when you take a bigger picture view.

Best wishes,

Joe

2008-12-18T22:05:00.000-08:00

An important reminder that evolution isn't a simple linear process: "Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom":

One of the most common misconceptions about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating in the amazing cognitive powers of humans, with the brains of other modern species representing previous stages. Such ideas have even influenced the thinking of neuroscientists and psychologists who compare the brains of different species used in biomedical research. Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains — and sophisticated cognition — have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages, or evolutionarily related groups: in mollusks such as octopuses, squid and cuttlefish; in bony fishes such as goldfish and, separately again, in cartilaginous fishes such as sharks and manta rays; and in reptiles and birds. Nonmammals have demonstrated advanced abilities such as learning by copying the behavior of others, finding their way in complicated spatial environments, manufacturing and using tools, and even conducting mental time travel (remembering specific past episodes or anticipating unique future events). Collectively, these findings are helping scientists to understand how intelligence can arise—and to appreciate the many forms it can take.

Hat tip: Bill.

2008-12-18T21:58:00.000-08:00

My choice for Question of the Year:

What is the most disloyal dog breed?

The most cat-like breed, I would guess.

2008-12-18T21:54:00.000-08:00

After Caroline Kennedy is elected president in 2016, Chelsea Clinton will be 36 years old, and entitled to a Senate appointment by then-to-be Governor Andrew Cuomo. You heard it here first (maybe).

2008-12-18T16:27:00.000-08:00

An afterthought on Obama's Rick Warren selection:

Most observers seem to think that picking Warren was politically shrewd, but they're assuming that gays aren't going to "ruin" inauguration day with angry, disruptive protests that will spoil the Beautiful Day and create an ugly counterpoint on the news. If gays put up a loud and noisy stink, then it's going to be obvious in hindsight that a safe, less controversial choice (such as the chaplain of the House of Representatives) would have been the smarter way to go.

2008-12-18T12:54:00.000-08:00

What, Was Jeremiah Wright Busy?

On Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, I'm neither surprised nor pissed, though I do feel disappointed and fearful, just as I was when Obama cuddled up with Donnie McClurkin.

It saddens me to see Obama's clumsy attempts at sending a "symbolic message" of "national unity" by giving prominence to a polarizing Christian conservative whose presence on the stage will only reignite the culture wars, bringing about controversy and conflict instead of healing. Weren't there enough religious moderates or progressives to choose from, religious leaders who actually share Obama's values? What about the chaplain of the House of Representatives? What about Rev. Katherine Schori of the Episcopal Church, and a foreceful advocate for women's issues and gay rights? What about somebody from Obama's own Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ?

Perhaps by selecting Warren, Obama's genuinely trying to forge what he sees as a "new kind of politics", a more integral approach that includes left and right. That's his talking points memo for sure. He wants us to see his choice of Warren as a signal of amity, not agreement. And that's fine in itself, but there's room to disagree that giving Warren such a prominent spotlight is the appropriate signal of amity. Inviting the guy to lunch is probably smart, but it's stupid and offensive to signal America that Warren is the new kingmaker in politics, and his brand of anti-gay Christianity is the new "in" (and these are exactly the sorts of signals Obama's sending, intentionally or not).

Update: Ben Smith has Obama's statement on the Warren choice:

“Let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency. What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues, and I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign’s been all about, that we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

I think the best thing that can be said for Obama's choice is that if he later proves himself to be instrumental in the passage of important gay rights legislation, then his overt coziness with the evangelical right/center will give him some valuable political cover. And to the extent that Obama follows through on signing civil unions, a repeal of DOMA, or a repeal of DADT, then "f*** the progressives" moments like this one will be quickly forgotten.

2008-12-17T11:12:00.001-08:00

Sorry if the Blogger template is screwed up for a day or two. I'm in the midst of a remodel.

2008-12-17T10:24:00.000-08:00

Replying to my previous post on Steve Lopez's article "A life thrown into turmoil by Proposition 8", a couple of reader replies:

pennyjane:

hi joe. well, let's don't call them fools. picketing the taco joint is an expression, you may think it trite, or even counterproductive, but...let's not start the name calling with "a fool's errand."

let's remember that different people hear different voices. i hope those voices in my head aren't bothering you?...anyway, sometimes that real mean spirited anger is heard...maybe not by people who are cool headed and clam but by other people who might have a little of that in them. let's give credit for the expression...calm and cool headed gets us places, maybe a little irrational anger gets us a mile or two down another path to the end.

I think you're very wise to acknowledge "maybe a little irrational anger gets us a mile or two down another path to the end"... that was sort of my point, too. :-)

Though I differ with you on wanting to give the picketers "credit for the expression". Self-expression purely for the sake of making one's self feel better is terribly self-indulgent and often counterproductive, and those picketers really ought to find a more worthy target of their ire. I don't think it's too much to ask to take them to task if they pick a bad target for their rage. I'm not asking anyone not to be angry, or not to protest or boycott. I'm saying they should pick their targets smarter, so that they minimize the chances of inspiring a backlash.

JK writes:

This was a family run business. The employee you write about was the daughter of the owner. She and her husband functionally ran the business.

All I know is what's in Lopez's article, and the truth isn't as simple as you suggest. Yes, Margie Christoffersen's mom is the owner. But her mom isn't a Mormon, her late father was. There's no indication that her mom has stated publicly any views regarding Prop. 8 or donated any money to the cause. Furthermore, I'm not sure that it's true that she and her husband "ran the business"; the article states that there are at least three managers, her husband being one. And once again, we have no indication that her husband is a Mormon, supported Proposition 8, or donated any money to the cause. But we do know that El Coyote employs workers who opposed Prop. 8, gave money to oppose it, and are now at risk of being laid off because of the protests against Ms. Christoffersen.

The forest through the trees, I think, is that Margie just was a dumb target for the protesters to pick on. Her donation was too small, and the means of protest--picketing the restaurant where she worked--swept way too many innocent people into the stinking net. The fact that Lopez's article paints her sympathetically isn't the result of anti-gay bias... it's the result of the activists picking a sympathetic target, and responding disproportionately.

JK also responds to my letter to Andrew Sullivan regarding the automobile industry bailout:

In your second last paragraph, you have misused the word "conservative." Try substituting "paranoid."

You may very well be right, though I'm not sure if that makes you a naive utopian instead of a pragmatist. Perhaps it is paranoid to worry that the collapse of the automobile industry and its myriad of ripple effects throughout the economy will decimate our country's manufacturing base to the point where US national security would be jeopardized. But I sure would like to know more than I do about the subject before deciding whether I'm for or against the bailout, and I think my fence-sitting results from a fear of the sort of radical economic upheaval that could result from the collapse of one of our country's major industries--and so yes, I call my caution a "conservative" (i.e., cautionary, self-preservation instinct) impulse.

2008-12-16T22:38:00.000-08:00

Prayers for Socks the cat, who, at age 19, has cancer.

2008-12-16T12:31:00.001-08:00

Dear Andrew Sullivan,

Your argument against the Big Three bailout, recently repeated in "Let The Big Three Die", would be much stronger if you addressed the seemingly legitimate national security concerns raised by the prospect of losing the automobile manufacturers.

Forget the arguments that we need to rescue Detroit to help prevent two million people from getting unemployed. I'm with you on the harsh truth that recession may be just what America needs to change our culture and society in healthy ways.

But there's a much better argument for the bailout that you haven't addressed. Proponents of the bailout say that if we lose the Big Three, we endanger the steel, chemicals, and electronics industrial base; we lose many of our top engineers; we won't have a failsafe in the event that the US needed to surge the production of military vehicles.

This NPR article presents the skeptic's case, giving voice to the analysts who say the military will be just fine if the automakers fail. But what if they're wrong? What if losing the Big Three would jeopardize our national security unacceptably? You don't really think we could just import vast numbers of military vehicles from China to fight our future wars, do you?

My own conservative streak (and it's there, integrated into my own integral philosophy) is afraid that the defense card trumps all the ideological talk of capitalism having consequences. I'm persuadable, but I would appreciate if you would go beyond repeating pro-capitalist bromides and tell us that you are certain that letting the auto makers fail would not harm national security, and why you are so confident.

Finally, one more idea. What if the Detroit baiilout were financed by a steep rise in the gas tax? Let drivers pay to keep the car industry alive.

Best wishes,

Joe

2008-12-15T12:45:00.000-08:00

Dear Steve Lopez,

While John Aravosis and DailyKos diarists are entitled to their opinions, rants, and raves, I disagree that your article "A life thrown into turmoil by Proposition 8" is "remarkably stupid." It's more likely that their passions have gotten in the way of seeing your article as the fair and honest piece of journalism that it is.

Personally, I'm supporting boycotters against Prop. 8 donors (though as a Seattle resident it doesn't affect me much), and am undecided about whether I'd choose not to solicit this taco joint if Maggie were the hostess. What I would not do is picket the restaurant over a mere $100 donation by one of its employees. Your article showed an example of just how easily the anger behind a legitimate boycott can get out of hand, hurting innocent people, and overall damaging the image of anti-Prop. 8 activists by casting them as uncivil and mean-spirited.

Aravosis and DailyKos diarists don't speak for all gay activists, though as a proponent of the strategy of "divergent rationales" (see my book Rising Up) it would be incongruent for me to say that there isn't a place for their anger or methods in the LGBT rights struggle. My hope, however, is that theirs isn't the dominant voice, and their methods aren't adopted by most gays, who are by and large cool headed enough to realize that picketing taco joints is a fool's errand when there's the much more serious work to do of changing hearts and minds.

Best wishes,

Joe

Cross-posted at Gay Spirituality.