A Wider Lens

Posted on January 11, 2015 by Professor Taboo

For the sake of higher, broader awareness and education…
(line break)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Though I am a history fanatic and quite familiar with the two world wars (politically and militarily), I watched an excellent 3-part series recently about events surrounding the World War I conflict, but it was NOT from the typical Western European perspective. It was from the “conscripted” perspective, or rather from the nations who were promised much from the principle Allied nations but in the end were grossly betrayed by them despite the enormous cost in life and blood of their own fathers and sons-in-arms.

As a 20th century born American, this was a perspective I knew very little about from my secondary schooling, collegiate years, or mainstream U.S. media. Today, out of necessity, I have completely relearned the events on my own accord. It wasn’t too long into the study that I learned my naïvety was larger than I had expected. Humbled, I pursued a more broadly educated view for the sake of my right to vote, taxpayer-responsibility, and my now refined middle-aged American

citizenship and wisdom. Furthermore, it mattered because my own children could one day be faced with international conflicts and wars, or more disturbing, serve in my nation’s armed forces in conflicts abroad that were created in 1917-18 and later 1947-48, or be casualties of future 9/11 attacks, and clueless about why! How is that possible you may ask!?

Naive is the democratic citizen who does not think their nation’s foreign affairs influence or dictate their present economy, employment, and taxes, even their own family — whom could very well serve giving the “ultimate sacrifice” for that same nation’s armed forces abroad. Very foolish is the same citizen who hasn’t a firm grasp of the full history behind their nation’s foreign affairs which led to and/or fuels conflicts abroad, and therefore perpetually binds and chains their national foreign policy, economy, employment, and taxes for near seventy years, seven decades, i.e. almost a century, with no end in sight. What has been the cost, both realized and still unrealized? The answer is likely much more than you and most could ever imagine.

I am currently reading (actually it is further reading) Alison Weir’s acclaimed book, “Against Our Better Judgement: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel.” Some reviews on Weir’s hard work:

“This provocative book documents a history that is essential in understanding today’s world. Scholarly, yet readable, it is a must for all Americans. We all need to know what we have spent by coddling Israel and its aggressions, and why the cost has become more than we have bargained for.”
— James Abourezk, former U.S. Senator

“The main messages from Weir’s history are that the Jewish community has not legitimately needed a homeland-refuge from anti-Semitism and that Americans must take back their country by insisting that their elected officials place the interests of the United States before those of Israel.”
— Karin Brothers, freelance writer for RINF.com

“The United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequalled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated…”
— Loy Henderson, U.S. Senate Department

“Prodigiously documented… Alison Weir must be highly commended for throwing such a brilliantly hard light on the relationship between the United States and Israel. I hope this marvelous book gets all the attention it deserves.”
— Ambassador Andrew Killgore, Publisher, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

If you are like me — a voting, taxpayer-responsible, loving parent, middle-aged (or not) American citizen who deeply cares about my local, state, and federal economy, jobs, tax-rates, and family members who serve, or could serve, in our armed forces — and you’re EXHAUSTED about the U.S. constantly getting dragged into Near and Middle Eastern conflicts, then you will want, NO… you are vehemently required to learn the real roots of the blood-ridden region and history! Broaden your lens, broaden your perspective.

If you truly care about humanity and this life-giving and sustaining planet, by re-examining this history and its bridle on current affairs in the region, then you will discover just how much our nation’s past is controlling our present and possibly your future generations! And hopefully, you can find the determination do something about it!

So it seems quite proper to close with this,

الله يكون معك

(paragraph break)
For starters, more information:

IfAmericansKnew.org
Behind the Balfour Declaration of 1917 – Institute for Historical Review

And my own references/blog-posts and their links:

Canaanites Killed & Removed From Native Lands
Religious Imperialism Alive Still

(paragraph break)

Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/.

Influences Upon the Majority

Posted on October 22, 2014 by Professor Taboo

In my previous post Out-of-Wedlock Babies, Texas gubernatorial candidate and state Attorney General Greg Abbott, along with current governor Rick Perry, appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals defending the state’s ban on same-sex marriage arguing that “unions that do not result in pregnancy… do not ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race.” Somehow both politicians connected out-of-wedlock babies to same-sex marriages into their argument. “Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the state’s interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births.” This in turn reduces “the costs that those births impose on society.” I am going to attempt to show how detached Greg Abbott and Rick Perry are and have been from national heterosexual trends and worse, their own state’s alarming heterosexual trends, as well as the state’s rising educational and social inequalities.

Unplanned Births – National vs. Texas Numbers

I can’t help but ask myself why I am addressing economic and social consequences by heterosexual individuals, when the original debate is supposed to be about homosexual marriage. I guess the simple vague answer is I am attempting to decipher Abbott’s and Perry’s Defense of Moral Prosperous Texas argument. That’s the best I can do. Here goes.

United States –
The average American home today looks nothing like it did fifty-years ago, even twenty-years ago. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) 2013-Table 16 p.70, in 1970 of every 1,000 U.S. births by women age 15-44 years old, 26.4% were unwedded, 44.3% in 1995, and 45.3% in 2012. Of those births, 22.4% were unwed teens age 15-19 in 1970, 43.8% in 1995, and 26.7% in 2012. The largest number of unwed women in an age group of those three time-periods were women age 20-24 years old in 1970 (38.4) and 1995 (68.7), but age 25-29 in 2012 at 67.2% — see table below. These are the national numbers and age trends.

Texas –
Finding the Texas data was more difficult. Nonetheless, I did manage to find limited hard data for the twenty-two-year period 1990-2012 from the CDC and NVSS (Table 89). Unfortunately, if you’re a die-hard political Texas Conservative, all the unwed childbearing data falls exactly during George W. Bush’s, Rick Perry’s, and Greg Abbott’s times in office.

In 2000 in Texas, for every 1,000 births by women, 30.5% were unwed and 15.3% of those were teenaged mothers. In 2009 in Texas, 42.4% were unwed and 13.3% of those were teen-mothers. In 2011 in Texas, 35.8% were unwed mothers and according to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy in Washington D.C., Texas ranks 47^th out of 50 in teen-pregnancy rates and ranks 37^th out of 50 in rate of decline in teen-pregnancy between 1988-2010.

Over a 22-year span, why is Texas not keeping up with well over half the nation in reducing unwed pregnancies and births, especially with teens?

Sex-Education

If a people wish to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, particularly with teenagers, if for no other reasons than to counter the dollar impact upon a state’s economic interests, rational thought would say educate thoroughly and broadly those kids and their parents. But that’s rational thought, not Texas GOP policy mandates.

A Brief Political History of Texas –
Since 1994 the Texas Congress, or both the House of Representatives and Senate, has firmly been held by the conservative Republican party. Governor Ann Richards lost her bid for re-election with her Democratic party against Republican candidate George W. Bush. Once Governor Bush won his 1998 re-election in a landslide victory across the entire state’s races, the Republican tsunami had begun. By 2002 after twice redrawing congressional districts that favored Republican candidates (map below), and despite federal judge’s ruling for the status quo, in unprecedented fashion Gov. Perry and his party controlled both chambers of the Texas Congress since Civil War Reconstruction. Today Texas is considered one of the most ~~puritan~~ conservative Republican states in the nation’s history.

Comparison of U.S. House election results for Texas in 2002 and 2004 after the creation of new boundaries for congressional districts following mid-term redistricting in 2003. Blue denotes a Democratic hold, dark red denotes a Republican hold, and light red denotes a Republican pickup. (Wikipedia)

Texas Teens Today –
Conservative Texas politicians, especially those in rural and suburban areas, are quick to sound their bull-horns for the right to bear arms, to laugh in the face of taxes, and to defend infinite individual freedom until their dying breath and stand by it all with unflinching fervor. The same fervor exists for sex-education, but for the last twenty-three Republican years with ~~ghastly~~ disheartening results.

Quite ironically Governor George W. Bush embraced President Bill “Unfaithful” Clinton’s multi-million dollar sex-abstinence-only campaign in the mid-90’s then further funded it and passed it when elected the 43^rd U.S. President. Governor Rick Perry, anxious to make his mark in history, rallied his very powerful pro-life allies to sweeten the funding pot and by 2009, 94% of all Texas public schools were teaching abstinence-only, in other words the only choice available, while completely eliminating any and all alternative education to sex – see spike in Texas unwed births, Table 2. The repercussions of these political mandates have had a massive economic impact not only on federal tax funding dollars, but Texas taxpayers as well. In this time period, Texas has been one of the largest recipients of federal sex-education funding, at $1.5 billion granted for abstinence-only programs. According to the U.S. Sexuality Information and Education Council, in 2009 alone Texas received $10-million to teach and promote abstinence-only sex-education in public schools. From 2008 to 2011 the Texas Department of State Health Services has rung-up $23.3 million in Rick Perry’s and Greg Abbott’s total-abstinence-only programs. These figures become significant when in the next ten years Texas makes-up over one-tenth of the U.S. population and continues to be the 2^nd highest GDP-state in the nation. Fair warning America!

What have been the results of Texas’s single-choice just-say-no sex-education? Texas now has the third highest rate of teenage births in the nation, and the second highest rate of repeat births to teenage girls (Table 3 above)! What does this look like compared to the world’s highest teenage birth rates? See Table 4. It’s ugly.
If there is one glaring point that the Texas Congress and Governors Bush, Perry, and favored candidate Greg Abbott have demonstrated over the last two decades are that “Out-of-Wedlock Babies” are and have been a heterosexual problem not a homosexual one. And channeling federal and state resources into abstinence programs such as “Worth the Wait”, or “Speedy the Sperm” (an 18-foot classroom model with shark-like teeth), or “Woman Dry, Sperm Die”, clearly fails miserably while billions of federal tax dollars go squandered. Period.

So why have Texas voters been so ignorantly stubborn for so long in putting in and keeping those failing policies and programs?

The Influences

With 268,581 square miles within its borders and three of the top ten largest metropolitan areas in the United States, Texas is one of the most diverse states in the Union as far as geography, people, culture, and economies. However, this diversity doesn’t necessarily translate over to its politics.

Six Influences on Texas Voters

Family – Generally children grow up thinking, behaving, and living similar to their parents despite any disagreements or generation gaps. Except perhaps for families below the poverty line, this general rule holds true in Texas. The family is typically the most influential and most enduring influence upon a young adult’s civil views and life. As the child ages their attitudes can diverge from those of their parents, but the core values and influence basically remain. This is of course true throughout America, however, inside Texas it tends to be more so due to the state’s “Lone Star” history, of which I’ll address later. Another influence is how the Texas family values higher education and if it’s a viable opportunity. Below is a comparison of levels of education for Texans versus the national averages from CensusScope.org and the U.S. Census Bureau. Cost, financial aid, and income are additional factors toward under-graduate degrees.
Gender – Due to the climate of the early 20^th century in America, moving from patriarchal dominance toward more equality – Women’s Suffrage Movement – Texas was the first Southern state to ratify the nation’s 19^th Amendment giving women the right to vote. However, amending the Texas Constitution to reflect the national winds of change proved to be a much harder task for Texas suffragists. Only after it was clear the changes and amendments would succeed in Washington D.C. in 1920, Texas — being one of the original eleven Confederate states — and Texan anti-suffragists fought the amendment to the last day.

Religion – Naturally religious affiliation will be influenced by a child’s parents. Typically those values carry over into young adulthood until the young adult becomes more exposed to Texas’ diversity, maybe the world’s as well, and those views may then be modified. As of the 2010 TSHA Almanac, 60% of Texans are religiously affiliated or attending members. The Chart and Maps below show specific breakdowns.

With regard to sex-education and out-of-wedlock births, religion definitely influences most young adults. As the chart and maps above indicate, Texas’ religious 34% are primarily Catholic and Southern Baptist, two faiths with traditionally rigid black-or-white guidelines on sex-education: one choice, total abstinence until marriage.

Teen birth-rates per county 2010

Race and Ethnicity – As a general historical rule African-Americans and Latinos have been politically liberal. Since before 1990 the racial and ethnic makeup of Texas has changed. From the 2000 census the Latino population made up 63.5% of the state’s population growth and is expected to surpass the white non-Hispanic population by 2014. The Charts below show specific changes and breakdowns from U.S. Census Bureau data tables.
For the sixth and last influence, along with addressing the “Lone Star” tradition and origin, I will also draw the connections from race-ethnicity to family economics, and how those three dynamics construct the Texas political culture.

Region – As was clear in the above two Texas maps of religious dominance, a Texan’s regional location plays a big part in their employment-type and therefore income, two significant factors in their political tendencies. The Map below illustrates the political areas by county across the state and further expounds Texas’ economic culture and is directly connected to political affiliations.

Note the political counties to other counties by educational attainment, and teen birth rate maps

Political and Economic Culture – Since Texas became part of the U.S. (1845) it has had two political sub-cultures: Traditionalists and Individualists. Both still survive and thrive today in various forms and greatly influence(d) Texas politics.

In pre-Civil War Texas Traditionalists made-up just a few agricultural families with large land-grants and several hundred slaves, and hence came to dominate state politics. During and after Reconstruction Jim Crow laws were passed to limit freed slaves from Texas public services. This limiting carried over into literacy tests, grandfather clauses, poll-taxes, and all-white primaries, further hampering minority voting rights. Texas Traditionalism is reflected today in economic and social conservatism. In the Rio Grande Valley the Patronage System still prevails in civil business and management. Religious groups influence government policies in the state’s Blue Laws, liquor laws, and gambling regulations. Several powerful families in Texas still influence state politics such as the Hunts, Bush’s, Bass, Perry’s, Crows, Dewhurst’s, and of course maverick Clayton Williams.

The Individualists echo Texas’ long history as a colony of Spain then Mexico. Having “inherited”(?) Spanish land-grants, Mexicans as well as Eastern-American settlers flocked to Texas for the cheap land and early economic stimulus policies by both the U.S. and Mexico. This lead to revolution and upon achieving independence from Mexico – with covert American support – individuals began implementing more economic stimulus policies for the upstart government with more land-grants or with basement prices. This sub-culture lingers in today’s Texas politics in four major limiting ways:

Congress meets only biennially
Legislators can only receive pay-increases if the state Constitution is amended
The Governor has very limited budgetary and appointment/removal powers
Judiciary process is complex and in a multi-tiered structure

Texas has extremely favorable laws and attitudes toward big-business and business owners in three major ways:

No personal income tax
No corporate income tax
Employment At-Will doctrine

For much of Texas’ history, its Economy has been driven by three industries: oil, livestock, and cotton and similar cash-crops. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given the state’s acquired landmass. For the better part of the last century Texas oil production and refinery was the bulk of the economy. By the 1980’s oil and natural gas production made-up around one-third of the economy and job market. Then came 1986, the crash of oil prices, followed by the state’s national-leading bank, savings, and loan crashes, causing mass job losses and bankruptcies statewide.

Livestock production has always dominated the revenues of Texas. Texas livestock and its byproducts make up about two-thirds of the state’s economic revenue and ranks first in the nation in livestock production. This industry’s influence is reflected in the state’s private land-holder percentage. Of the state’s 268,581 square miles of land, 95% is privately owned. With the state’s continued population growth, it’s a matter of time before controversial issues ignite, if they haven’t already, and another political tsunami rolls through.

Cotton and other cash-crops are major contributors to the Texas economy. Since 1880 Texas has led the nation in cotton production with over 25% grown, produced, and exported from Texas. Corn, hay, soybeans, pecans, citrus fruits, and peanuts are the state’s other high-revenue crops. These industries still employ a large number of blue-collar workers with a growing mix of Latinos the last decades.

Part of the recent economic winds-of-change come in the Services and Technology sectors, Dell Computers for example.

Both above political sub-cultures and the state’s economic environment have delightful attractive benefits to individuals and families, but not for everyone. They have some unfavorable civil and social side-effects and influences as well.

The Polarizing of Texas

Gov. Rick Perry unveils the new 2004 Texas state quarter

As touched on earlier, Texas has begun to change. With change there is inevitably friction and controversy, particularly from the state’s Traditionalists and Individualists and their long-standing way of Lone Star life.

In 2004, as the U.S. Mint was continuing its nationwide state-to-state release of new quarters representing each of the fifty states, Governor Perry remarked about the state’s nickname and meaning at the unveiling of the U.S. “Texas” quarter in Austin, TX:

“Today it becomes official: Texas’ rich and vivid history will gain even greater currency as the Lone Star of Texas becomes a regular feature in the pockets and purses of Americans from sea to shining sea. On one side will be the face of George Washington, and on the other side a renowned symbol of Texas Independence. The Lone Star is one of the most identifiable symbols of Texas, and a historic representation of the independent spirit of our people. Its origins can be traced back to the movement for independence, and its continued presence today reminds people that Texans are a different breed, set apart by their fierce individualism and their unrelenting desire for freedom.”

2004 Texas state Quarter

That is the short, proud, Conservative public version of the story behind the symbol and nickname. The broader more diverse representation is a bit different.

As a Texas certified teacher of all four core subjects, including my passion Social Studies/History, and as an eighth-generation Texan, I feel I too have a more balanced version of Texas Then and Now to share. As noted, many Texans are proud, proud of their heritage, proud of the state’s size, proud of the state’s influence on national politics, national economic revenues, and the state’s implied attitude We Can Take It or Leave It – “It” being the United States as a whole. Yes, as Governor Perry’s speech above indicates, Texas fervor for individualism, independence, and freedoms are alive and well today. At least in his party’s mind and business circles it is.

The less exaggerated version of Texas history, particularly its independence from Mexico, i.e. the distinction between Texians and Tejanos, is a lesser-known side to the territory’s colonists and their struggle (or fight) to make a peaceful prosperous living. Of the fourteen historic leaders (Giants of the Texas Republic) of early Texas, only two of them were actually born and raised in Texas – Bexar, or today San Antonio – and therefore are/were prominent Tejanos. Eleven other Giants, who also represented their deep American ideologies, were all Texians, or immigrants from the United States enamored by the territory’s “cheap” opportunities. Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, Mirabeau Lamar, William Travis, Davy Crockett, James Bowie, Thomas Rusk, Anson Jones, Edward Burleson, David Burnet, all hailed from east of the Mississippi River. However, the Tejanos of early Texas – namely Juan Seguin and José Navarro – relentlessly sought to ease tensions between their Mexican heritage and principles, and the “Texian Giants” from the east. Of course, that ~~couldn’t~~ did not happen. The meaning of “Lone Star State” is actually more an American-Andrew Jackson political movement westward than a true Texas-Tejano story. It is the commonly enduring, though very porous, Anglo-American extrapolation of Texas history.
Due to a 178-year “entrepreneur” spirit of Texas and six major influences upon its social, political, and economic culture which divides as much as it invigorates, Texas has one of the lowest voter turnout rates, particularly for state and local primaries and runoffs (see Table 5 above) for the last five decades. Why the despondency?

I’ve given ample assessments of the factors that go into Texas’ diverse cultural and political climate. Now I will give one last factor that plays a big part in Texas’ complex economic climate and therefore its voter climate: education.

A History of Educational Polarization in Texas

A particular answer to Texas’ consistently poor voter turnout rate overly argued hundreds of times by both political parties is illegal immigrants. While this may be true, partially true, or hardly true, the data and facts paint a much bigger problem. In a comprehensive study by TG Research and Analytical Services (2014), Texas ranks in the bottom tenth of U.S. states among 9^th graders who graduate from high school or college on time – Table above. Comparatively Texas has a high-rate of students exiting the higher-education pipeline toward post-secondary degrees beginning in 7^th grade up to college freshmen (see Table Texas Student Pipeline, p. 73). Texas is below the national pace to meet projected targets for Hispanic enrollment according to a June 2013 study by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), p. 19 – and the Texas Hispanic population has been the state’s fastest growing race for the last 20-30 years! And the most telling of all studies and data? College completion rates are noticeably lower in Texas than the U.S. average and have lagged behind national averages (U.S. Census Bureau – Current Population Survey) for at least the last decade.

In my estimation these educational indicators explain in large part why the majority of Texas citizens (registered or not) have little motivation or skilled capacity to stamp their voice at voting booths. This is also a national trend, particularly in the young adult ranks. With that aside, the politics of modern Texas along with the economic urbanization of new industries and increased mechanization of agriculture, all converge demanding a college-educated (or higher) workforce. Furthermore, the current higher-educated sector in Texas, i.e. the white-non-Hispanic Traditionalists and Individualists, hold and have held the key socio-economic and political positions in the state. It is no leap of reason that “knowledge” and a quality education provides an advantage, and power. The influences upon voters doesn’t end there. One more factor deserves attention.

The cost of attaining a college-degree or higher is difficult at best for Texas families hovering around the poverty line, UNLESS financial aid (grants and loans) is accessible. However, wading through all possible financial aid programs and conditions can be daunting and frightening for impoverished parents or non-Caucasian parents with or without a high school diploma. What I found interesting in my research and preparation on this subject, is that Texas relies very heavily on federal aid for college admissions; significantly more so than its own state or institution’s aid. That aid is also in the form of interest-bearing loans, not grants. Federal grants for college-bound students have been steadily declining over the years.

Assuming some of you have read this far, dissecting and deciphering the Texas and federal programs/conditions would need another two or three separate posts minimum, of which I or likely you have no time to read. Semi-apologetically I will skip it. But it is reasonable to conclude that for a state that prides itself on self-reliance, self-motivation, and self-direction, a Lone Star if you will, it sure leans heavily – at least for the last decade – on 49 other states to help.

* * * * * * * * * *

If Texas continues on its twenty-year path of rising educational and economic disparity, by 2040-2050 Texas will no longer be capable of supplying an adequately educated work force for employers and businesses that demand college-degreed-or-higher employees they need to remain competitive, innovative, and profitable. The option for those future Texans? Low-pay undesirable service jobs with little to no vertical movement. Texas, this trend must be reversed!

Cutting or limiting the scope of broad education, including sex-education, as Rick Perry and Greg Abbott have done over their political terms, only handicaps Texas’ future generations. Cutting or limiting a diverse education and experience among all types of Peoples – including the LGBT communities which by the way empowers students and young adults to better address and manage social, political, and economic factor — will actually handicap future young Texans. The repercussions of bias, limited, inflexible, faith-based social and political polices and mandates in 1990-2010 were far more reaching than Texas voters could’ve possibly imagined.

What Next?

In a north Texas-based Star-Telegram January 2014 interview, Steve Murdock, a former Texas state demographer and director of the U.S. Census Bureau, offering causes for Texas’ increasing wealth inequality explained “if we don’t [correct] educational levels, Texas will be poorer and Texas will be less competitive”. The same can be said about Texas’ socio-economic issues exacerbated by decades of GOB faith-based politics (Good Ole Boy).

A new generation of Texans, a more diverse population of Texans – though not so highly educated by national percentages – have a golden opportunity this November to reverse Texas’ decades of spiraling downward turns in education…ALL FORMS of education! Getting to the voting booths – and out of people’s bedroom (heterosexuals) and personal life-choices – is the easiest first step, reversing our abysmal voter-turnout rate.

I am one eighth-generation Texan who wants that to happen and permanently.

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

(paragraph break)

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

Out-of-Wedlock Babies

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Professor Taboo

On October 10^th, 2014 then again the previous July, Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate for Texas governor defended the state’s ban on same-sex marriage based upon economic benefits to the state and its citizens. He continued his position by stating:

“The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage,” the court reply brief read. “It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.” Abbott and Perry continued that “First, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race. Second, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.”

There are a number of flawed preconceived ideas about Greg Abbott’s and Rick Perry’s argument and brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. None of them more glaring than unions which do not result in pregnancy. That logic implies that couples who are unable to conceive but adopt, do not and cannot advance the state’s interests. To read their brief click here.

Economically Conducive Babies

The first and flagrant flaw of their position is their idea that babies created and born inside traditional heterosexual marriages produce economically conducive state citizens. Apparently, as archaic as it sounds, babies have a varying monetary value attached to them based upon their parents, and that value is determined not by love, but by anonymous (to the child) governing officials an anonymous (to the child) population elects. And aside from contrary national statistics on heterosexual homes, Greg Abbott and Rick Perry are essentially pretending to be psychics who can predict the futures of newborn babies or toddlers — or perhaps the better description would be playing God.

Knowing Texas Republican politics well – I am an eighth generation Texan living in the state the majority of my life – it is safe for me to assume that Perry and Abbott are firmly pro-life advocates and politicians. Abortion of an unborn child conceived in an illegal rape, in their view, deserves a chance in life to become possibly (probably?) a model citizen. They’d likely argue that no one, not even a 47-year old mother, can predict whether that rape-child (or out-of-wedlock child) would be a detriment to society. In that particular case they’d argue a pro-choicer is horribly illogical and essentially a murderer pretending to play God. Therefore, since no one can precisely predict how a newborn baby will turn out as a person or as an upstanding citizen, they must be given the chance. Perhaps their words would be having faith in God that He can turn seemingly horrendous circumstances into later miracles. But therein lies the paradox or flaw in their political position.

How would a one- or two-year old, placed into or adopted by a stable, economically set, ethically irreproachable same-sex couple surrounding their home in plentiful love…be predicted prematurely to turn out as a productive or detrimental young adult for society decades into the future? Then I’d be the first to proclaim “Have faith in your God that He can turn seemingly untraditional circumstances into later examples of tremendous love!” But I’d later add, “think also of the possible or probable societal issues that child would face – especially in a bullying or hateful anti-gay community or schools – when his/her “parents” attend PTA meetings or hometown gatherings and sports games.” Is it not just as much the environment and community the child grows up in as it is the time-of-conception circumstances? Is it not as much the community that either makes the child’s life miserable or happy as it is the parents?

It is at this point where I think I understand where economics might play into the debate. A young malleable vulnerable child typically has a better chance of becoming a productive citizen and taxpayer if it is raised in a home and community of love, stability, education, equal opportunity, and positive support. Many indigenous cultures today do exactly that, where the tribe raises the children as much as its biological parents, and they do it quiet successfully! There is no heavy favor between one couple or one man and woman. In contrast, a child born into a neighborhood of strife, violence, hate, bullying and ill-founded prejudices has much less of a chance to become a productive citizen and taxpayer regardless of male-female parenting. Wait a minute! Are Abbott and Perry presuming children born into those negative influences are found purely and only within every LGBT home, community or neighborhood? Yes, an utterly ridiculous question, right? But if it is presupposed, as Abbott’s and Perry’s brief state, that a newborn or toddler has a reduced chance of becoming an economically productive citizen based upon its parents, then sticking with that absurd logic also means we need to ban heterosexual marriages where one or both parents have negative detrimental civil and/or criminal records (e.g. bankruptcies?) to sustain and advance the state’s interests. Is that sound logic?

The child’s prenatal neurological and genetic wiring may (probably?) be perfectly fine, at least giving them that advantage. But how is the planetary leap made from postnatal rearing straight to heterosexual parents? If the child is simply born or placed into a home and community of love, stability, education, equal opportunity, and positive support, is not much of the child’s future success dependent on the community’s support, sociably and economically? But I simply cannot fathom how those positive influences onto a newborn child, toddler, and adolescent can only be provided by a heterosexual home!

What Abbott-Perry ~~presupposed~~ ideas on marriage or parenting are firmly backed by family and sexual-orientation statistics? America’s appalling rising divorce rates, I’d imagine are numbers based strictly on heterosexual marriages. Is that supposed to support their position!? Furthermore, what basis do anonymous lawmakers or citizens have in dictating that child’s healthy loving home? Well, in this case you’d have to ask Rick Perry and Greg Abbott. They are not only experts in state law, party politics, and apparently love, but now licensed doctors in medical prenatal genetics, obstetrics, and gynaecology. Even though a perfectly normal prenatal and postnatal child can be born (adopted?) into a very loving stable home, based on Abbott’s and Perry’s unwavering position and careers, and only if it is done in heterosexual homes. And herein lies more problems.

Proper and Appropriate Home Construction

This plural family, all parents being heterosexual, from a Mormon background faces larger challenges in their tradtional monogamous hetero neigborhood and town.

This plural family, all parents being heterosexual from Mormon backgrounds, face larger difficult challenges daily in their traditional monogamous hetero neighborhood and town.

Are all and exclusively heterosexual homes the best and safest environment for newborn children? The Brookings Institute in Washington D.C., is consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank in the nation’s capital and throughout most political campaigns. What do they believe are the best family planning methods? Simply answered: “A Job.” That certainly falls in-line with Abbott’s and Perry’s economic position.

The October 14^th blog-post by Andrew Cherlin is a delightful insightful article that for this subject begs the question: Are you implying births strictly by heterosexual partners or by non-heterosexual partners? I strongly urge you to click over to Andrew’s post to answer that question yourself! For those of you who are too busy to go read it (or too lazy), I give my synopsis:

The dissolution rates for cohabiting [and therefore heterosexual] couples over the subsequent years during the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study were very high.

What does that mean? Well, for starters it means that being heterosexual is no guarantee of a happy stable home for the unborn or newborn child. They are just as likely to be raised by a single parent as they are by a loving team or partnership. And by the simple but profound concept of “strength in numbers,” the child raised within a home and community of love, stability, education, equal opportunity, and positive support has much higher chances of a good future as one raised in a single parent home.

Therefore, is the parenting issue really heterosexual or non-heterosexual, or is it entirely something else? It honestly seems to be the latter. That begs the question of WHO builds a healthier and appropriate home for the child. It is here that I can speak amply on that question as a heterosexual male raised by heterosexual parents.

I know and am close to many friends, family members, and couples that are heterosexual, gay-lesbian or bisexual, of various careers from various ethnic backgrounds, levels of education, and even with civil and criminal records. It most certainly provides (at least) me with a wide, wide lens. One example I want to first mention is a heterosexual couple in Houston, Texas. I will change their and everyone else’s names for obvious reasons.

Kimberly and Paul had been married for eight years. He wanted a son or sons badly. She was open to the idea, however was not ready to give up her rising career as a flight attendant with a world-wide airline corporation. After giving in to her husband’s incessant pushing, they began trying to conceive. But after two or three years it wasn’t working. Years later and after many expensive doctor visits and alternative conception methods, it still wasn’t working. Kimberly gave up; Paul soon followed. And suddenly one evening when there was no more pressure, wham, it happened. Six years later another boy. For those twelve years – then in the Baltimore, MD area – they ended up having two happy normal boys doing very well in their respective public schools. Then the marital problems began. She began feeling ignored and taken for granted as a stay-at-home Mom who gave up her incredibly good and potentially rich-through-retirement career. The husband and father neglected his marital and fathering responsibilities by always, always working very long hours. After trying to mend and repair the marriage, Kimberly moved to Houston where two of her brother’s and their wives and kids were located, with the boys and without Paul. The official separation had begun. But then other serious problems arose.

As she enrolled her two boys into an exceptional south Houston school and district, her boys soon began to be heckled and bullied by students, and unfairly treated by certain staff. You see, Kimberly was white-Caucasian, Paul was African-American. Their kids, were by some Texas citizens, considered half-breeds, inferior simply due to their skin-color and heterosexual parents. Yes, I emphasized heterosexual to make a point.

These two normal happy boys now faced a problem they knew nothing about or why it was happening to them: social injustice.

You see, it is just as much a community’s responsibility to give children the best opportunities possible, economic or otherwise, as it is the children’s home! Does it really have everything to do with the sexual orientation of people parenting the child? Is love and happiness ONLY available from heterosexual parents and dare I say pure-bred heterosexual parents? Do I honestly need to answer the last question? I really hope not.

My second and third example will be from Barry, a gay man who I have befriended the last eight years – who is recently married to his partner – and a lesbian friend over the last seven years. I cannot count the stories they have shared with me about their social and occupational struggles.

As a teenager my male gay friend Barry was so bullied and so mocked and mistreated in school that he eventually caved-in to alcoholism and drug addiction for relief. His parents were not overly involved or committed to raising him – yes, they were heterosexual. My good friend has now been clean-and-sober for over twenty years, working hard at two jobs, and to me and our circle of friends is one of the most understanding, patient, and tolerant of society’s harsh flaws, I consider him and now his husband to be remarkable stories of survival in an often hateful jungle of taught bigotry and prejudice.

My third example, my good close lesbian friend Sally, faced the same unnecessary adolescent pressures and abuses in her heterosexual household and later high school and occupational years. Many times in her childhood she saw and heard her father and mother fight, scream, and throw objects. Many times they threatened divorce on each other but could never take that path for fear of the backlash by their Catholic Church and members. As a result, her brother has felony convictions of drug-trafficking and prescription drug abuse. The mother also abuses prescription drugs, possibly due to her marriage. Her sister has fallen in and out of abusive relationships, likely because of the model presented to her by her own parents. Sally, however, is now a college graduate and employed LPN at a Dallas hospital. All three of these friends are incredibly productive taxpayer citizens offering told and untold important value to their communities! All three of them have acquired an unbelievable amount of patience, tolerance, understanding, and pain provided by their heterosexual homes and harshly insensitive communities. I will happily go out on a limb and say these three human beings have a TREMENDOUS amount of wisdom to offer a newborn child to last their lifetime!

Dare I say their children would know how to build the most stable impregnable healthier appropriate home that our society could not tear down? Duh!

Then my last example is someone I’ve already written about in an April 2011 post that takes the subject of parenting and families on a different but relevant direction, which is how significantly a community/society takes on the responsibility of its children, their future success or failure, and how it is achieved. Fortunately, on a few levels, the story/post has a happy ending. One moral of my intersex birth story is that the meaning of love between human beings is defined in many ways and cannot be defined in just one or two ways. In my June 2013 post A Supreme Decision and February 2013 post Toss the 2-D Glasses, I further explain scientifically how non-heterosexuals are just as capable of happy, loving, stable parenting as anyone, including heterosexuals. In a 2010 review of practically every study done on gay-lesbian parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and USC sociologist Timothy Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents as children raised in homes with gay-lesbian parents. Besides, why are there orphans and fostering opportunities in existence anyway? How did they come to life? A hunch tells me it wasn’t because their biological parents were gay or lesbian. Is the real issue Abbott and Perry something else?

More Than Economics

To say that love is more than economics is like saying medieval marriage arrangements are out of date. Medieval marriage practices were, at least with the nobility and most of their peasants, entirely based on property and its economics. Today, at least in many Western nations, marriage is increasingly based upon attraction as it is on economics. What exactly is attraction? Does it involve feelings? Are feelings a powerful force inside a person? Will passion about something or someone make them go to the ends of the world for their beloved? Will a soldier gladly risk his life for his country or a way of life he is passionate about?

In ancient Greece love was defined in six ways and they promoted all six equally. In his book How Should We Live? Great Ideas from the Past for Everyday Life, Roman Krznaric writes about the Athenians expressions of nurturing love or attraction…

“[Our] contemporary coffee culture has developed a sophisticated vocabulary to describe the many options for getting a caffeine fix – cappuccino, espresso, flat white, Americano, macchiato, mocha. The ancient Greeks were just as refined in the way they thought about love, distinguishing six different kinds. This is the opposite of our approach today, where under a single, vague term we bundle an enormous range of emotions, relationships, and ideals. A teenage boy can declare ‘I am in love’, but he is unlikely to mean the same thing as a sixty-year old who says he is still in love with his [spouse] after all their years together…

…The inhabitants of classical Athens would have been surprised at the crudeness of our expression. Their approach to talking about love [passion] not only enlivened gossip in the market square, but allowed them to think about its place in their lives in ways that we can barely comprehend with our impoverished language of love, which in terms of coffee is the emotional equivalent of a mug of instant.”

Krznaric goes on to list the six Greek definitions of expansive love/passion: philia, ludus, pragma, eros, agape, philautia. He gives brief definitions at the Yes Magazine website of which I will share here.

Philia, or deep friendship. It concerned the deep comradely friendship that developed between brothers in arms who had fought side by side on the battlefield. It was about showing loyalty to your friends, sacrificing for them, as well as sharing your emotions with them. (Another kind of philia, sometimes called storge, embodied the love between parents and their children.)
Ludus, or playful love. This was the Greeks’ idea of playful love, which referred to the affection between children or young lovers. We’ve all had a taste of it in the flirting and teasing in the early stages of a relationship. But we also live out our ludus when we sit around in a bar bantering and laughing with friends, or when we go out dancing. Dancing with strangers may be the ultimate ludic activity, almost a playful substitute for sex itself. Social norms today may frown on this kind of adult frivolity, but the classic Greeks were unabashed of publically showing it.
Pragma, or longstanding love. Greek love was the mature love known as pragma. This was the deep understanding that developed between long-married couples. Pragma was about making compromises to help the relationship work over time, and showing patience and tolerance. The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm said that we expend too much energy on “falling in love” and need to learn more how to “stand in love.” Pragma is precisely about standing in love—making an effort to give love rather than just receive it. With about a third of first heterosexual marriages in the U.S. ending through divorce or separation in the first 10 years, the Greeks would surely think we should bring a serious dose of pragma into our relationships.
Eros, or sexual expression. Named after the Greek god of fertility, it represented the idea of sexual passion and desire. But the Greeks didn’t always think of it as something positive, as we tend to do today. In fact, eros was viewed as a dangerous, fiery, and irrational form of love that could take hold of you and possess you—an attitude shared by many later spiritual thinkers, such as the Christian writer C.S. Lewis. Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks. Which is odd, because losing control is precisely what many people now seek in a relationship. Don’t we all hope to fall “madly” in love?
Intriguingly, in ancient Greek texts eros was often associated with homosexuality, especially the love of older men for adolescents, a practice prevalent in fifth- and sixth-century Athens amongst the aristocracy.
Agape, or love for everyone. The most radical of the six, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers. Agape was later translated into Latin as caritas, which is the origin of our word “charity.” S. Lewis referred to it as “gift love,” the highest form of Christian love. But it also appears in other much older religious traditions, such as the idea of mettā or “universal loving kindness” in Theravāda Buddhism.
There is growing evidence that agape is in a dangerous decline in many countries. Empathy levels in the U.S. have declined sharply over the past 40 years, with the steepest fall occurring in the past decade. Kzrnaric feels we urgently need to revive our capacity to care about strangers. I am in complete agreement!
Philautia, or love of self. Here is where the ancient Greeks can teach mountains of wisdom. The idea was that if you love yourself and feel secure in yourself, you will have plenty of love to give others (as is reflected in the Buddhist-inspired concept of “self-compassion”). Or, as Aristotle put it, “All friendly feelings for others are an extension of a man’s feelings for himself.” The ancient Greeks found diverse kinds of love in relationships with a wide range of people—friends, family, spouses, strangers, and even themselves. This contrasts with our typical focus on a single romantic relationship, where we hope to find all the different loves wrapped into a single person or soul mate. The message from the Greeks is to nurture the varieties of love and tap into its many sources.

I believe posting these six forms of love are critically important in not only showing the wonderful expanse of deep love, but also that it is not exclusive to any specific type of person or their lifestyle. Everybody can give it and receive it. To demand that it is exclusive would be, to put it nicely, grossly ignorant. Perhaps the only people who are incapable of such love are the ones who choose to be closed off to it, restrict it.

Where in any of those six forms of love could it exclude non-heterosexual relationships and parenting? How could any of them justify exclusion from any man or woman? Does love or economics distinguish itself by any one person, male or female? No, apparently people do – apparently governors, lieutenant governors, and lawmakers do. But according to our federal constitution and my state’s constitution, those elected officials represent what the majority of registered voters want. But does a crowd or majority make it right? Ask the German people of 1940 and their Wehrmacht and SS units. Ask the 19^th century slaves of America’s southern states. Before that dark part of American history, ask the Native American tribes during Manifest Destiny. All three of those historical eras had communities, groups, states and nations that stood by or followed while a few led thousands or millions of “citizens” to do their bidding.

Influences Upon the Majority

Because I have now almost 4,000 words in this post, I will continue this subject of Abbott’s and Perry’s Out-of-Wedlock Babies and conformity by the masses on my next post Influences Upon the Majority.

Conclusion

I try (to the extent possible) not to impose my own personal world-views onto others as a show of respect and hope that they can find on their own a way of life that benefits the most freedom and responsibility to the largest number, while protecting against those who would reduce, restrict, even eliminate both. As a Freethinking Humanist from heterosexual non-religious parents, I do feel a certain civil obligation to offer in an understandable format all sides to an uncomfortable issue, or at the very least cause them to consider solutions outside, maybe way outside their own “box.” I hope I have succeeded so far and you will return for my next post. If I have not succeeded, I truly want to hear/read your comments below how I have fallen short and why.

Footnote – I am a college graduate, professional teacher, and also an out-of-wedlock conceived baby. My two kid’s mother also has a college degree, comes from an ultra-conservative Christian family and parents whose first child was conceived out-of-wedlock. My daughter, the older of my two who is now a third-year college student making outstanding grades, was also conceived out-of-wedlock. None of us are “imposing on the state” as Abbott and Perry wrongly assume or speculate. However, we are indeed all heterosexuals!

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

(paragraph break)

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

The “Holy” Rivers

Posted on September 22, 2013 by Professor Taboo

The Ganges River (or Ganga) in India has been the longest holiest river in any religion. Hinduism spans almost three millennia in the history of humanity and it is the longest surviving religion on the planet with more than 950 million followers. The Ganges River bears huge religious significance to the Hindu religion. The Goddess Ganga originates from the Gangotri glacier in the Hindu Himalayan mountains 13,451 feet above sea level and flows an incredible 1,569 miles to the Bay of Bengal. For 420 million people the river sustains life in the form of food, water, bathing, and agricultural irrigation. As a river the Ganges contributes to more than 25% of India’s total water resources. It is the ONLY River in the world with such a massive impact and significance on so many lives.

The religious significance of the Ganges River to her people/followers cannot be overstated. Subhamoy Das from India writes from Ganga: Goddess of the Holy River:

“Hindus believe that rituals performed by the river Ganga multiply in their blessedness. The water of Ganges, called ‘Gangajal’ (Ganga = Ganges; jal = water), is held so sacred that holding this water in hand no Hindu dares to lie or be deceitful. The ‘Puranas’ or ancient Hindu scriptures say that the sight, the name, and the touch of Ganga cleanses one of all sins and taking a dip in the holy Ganga bestows heavenly blessings. The ‘Narada Purana,’ prophesied pilgrimages in the present Kali Yuga to the Ganges will be of utmost importance.”

But the river is even more than just blessings and cleansings. Being on the banks of the Ganges has spiritual significance too:

“The land over which Ganga flows is regarded as hallowed ground. It is believed that those who die around this river reach the heavenly abode with all their sins washed away. The cremation of a dead body at the banks of Ganga or even casting the ashes of the deceased in its water is thought auspicious and leads to the salvation of the departed. The famous Ganga Ghats of Varanasi and Hardwar are known for being the holiest funeral detestation of the Hindus.”

Today’s River Ganges

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Over at least the last four centuries the Holy River has become the most polluted river in the world. The very children, who suckle from her spiritual nipples, turn around and contaminate the very milk from which they suck oblivious to how tainted their holy water has become from the headwater of the Himalayas to the poisonous outfall into the Bay of Bengal.

Five major facts from a native Indian about the Holy Ganges River:

Approximately 1 billion liters of raw, untreated sewage are dumped in the river on a daily basis. The amount has more than doubled in the last 20 years and experts predict another 100% increase in the following 20 years. – See more at: http://www.all-about-india.com/Ganges-River-Pollution.html #sthash.f8rueAaD.dpuf
The rapid explosion of India’s population in the last 25 years coupled with lax regulations on industry has put a huge strain on the river. – See more at: http://www.all-about-india.com/Ganges-River-Pollution.html #sthash.f8rueAaD.dpuf
Thousands of bodies are cremated on the banks of the river yearly with many being released into the river with hopes that their souls may have a direct path to heaven. – See more at: http://www.all-about-india.com/Ganges-River-Pollution.html #sthash.f8rueAaD.dpuf
Hundreds of unwanted or ‘illegitimate’ babies, cattle and other animal carcasses are also dumped in the Ganges again with religious significance – See more at: http://www.all-about-india.com/Ganges-River-Pollution.html #sthash.f8rueAaD.dpuf
The levels of coliform bacteria are over 2800 times the level considered safe by the W.H.O (world health organization). – See more at: http://www.all-about-india.com/Ganges-River-Pollution.html #sthash.f8rueAaD.dpuf

The religious, social, economic, and ecological impact of the Ganges River is so significant that should nothing be done to resolve its crisis, the devastation would reach most of the developed world on several major levels. Whether the river can be considered as holy and pure is an entirely different debate. Environmentally the river has become a major crisis. But the point of this post is not to address the obvious pollution of the river — the Indian people and their government must act — instead, the Ganges River will be my metaphor.

Before you read further, take a minute to ask and try to answer this question: What has been the cause of the great river’s condition? How many causes can you list?

* * * * * * * * * *

Like the Holy Ganges River – the Neolithic epigraphs (c. 9,800 BCE), shrines and figurines, then the practices, shrines, figurines, and epigraphs of the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt (3,300 – 1,300 BCE), the earliest compositions of the Brahmanas (Hinduism) around 800 BCE, the recordings of Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism between 551 – 300 BCE, the Hebrew/Judaic (150 BCE) and Roman/Christian fragmented scriptures, or bible passages (c. 300 CE), and finally the Arabian/Muslim Quran (c. 640 CE) – have all traveled through time, collected various modifiers, additives, or contaminates, all resulting in significant derivatives from the original purest water. Click here for a more extensive timeline.

One would think that a youthful candidate-believer might think twice before drinking the, let’s say, multifarious water, right?

Wrong.

Studies done from 2007 through 2011 in 40 countries around the world, including the United States show that the rational choice to adhere to a religion is heavily self-centered, not theological, not necessarily empirical, or not even miraculous, but instead based on the question, what will the decision cost ME?

One could then argue that the decision to adhere to a religion or religious lifestyle does involve adequate cognitive skills of ~~survival~~ servitude to peace and passivity, a noble cause; however, it lacks in higher rational thought and objective empirical simulation to achieve truth – that is cumulative truth for greater good as well as for a greater number.

Just because everyone seems to have a pet rock or smoke cigarettes doesn’t mean it is best for 7.46 billion plus humans. It is probably the result of clever glamorous sales and marketing, or because the ramifications of swallowing the ~~hook, line, and sinker~~ river water have yet to play out.

But the ~~tragedy~~ irony of it all is that the holy river and the tributaries that feed her have been around for thousands of years collecting billions of ingredients. Worse yet, millions of consumers of the holy water have known of its additives, modifiers, and contaminants for well over two centuries and still choose to bathe in it, drink from it, and distribute it. Let’s take a brief look at the various faith-stages downstream and their purity. However, for the sake of time, space, and effort I will not delve into the more peaceful tolerant religions (e.g. Buddhism) and their holy texts, but instead concentrate on the three major Abrahamic religions historically rout with violence and intolerance.

I have purposely put the following three Abrahamic religions in chronological order, top to bottom, oldest to newest because they all originate from ancient oral Judaism and earlier Neolithic practices. And like the Varanasi portion of the Ganges River, which originates from the Kanpur region, which originates before it in the Nepal Himalayas, so too Christianity, and more so Islam, are distant derivatives of oral Judaism.

Judaism – The Hebrew Scriptures

1st Temple of Solomon

The earliest written stories or narrations of the oral traditions of the Jewish people span about 13 centuries. Today’s Hebrew bible probably reached its current form in the 2^nd century CE. What is less well-known today is that in ancient Palestine, or the “Promised Land” to the Jews by the Hebrew God, writing was restricted to the rich nobility, governors, and high priests. It was also much too expensive for the illiterate masses which saw writing as magical and a gift from the gods; a long-held social tradition of governing. Manuscripts were the guarded knowledge of political and religious elites who were believed by the less educated commoners to be divine. William Schniedewind, the Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA, speaks about the formation of the early Hebrew Scriptures this way:

“Most biblical literature was written long before [586 – 539 BCE, the Babylonian exile]. However, the priests who took over the leadership of the Jewish community during this period preserved and edited biblical literature. Biblical literature became a tool that legitimated and furthered the priests’ political and religious authority.”

Notice he states “…preserved and edited” the manuscripts. Whether for political, economic, or religious status, oral stories put into biblical literature was ~~contaminated~~ edited by human priests-kings and their scribes. Therefore, it should be asked are the following passages from the Hebrew Bible a reflection of God, or a reflection of human writers/editors and their perceptions of their life and their world?

“Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them.” (Num. 25:16-17)

“Go back and forth killing your brother and friend and neighbor” (Exod. 32:27)

“Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children” (Ezek. 9:6)

“I will wipe humankind…from the face of the Earth.” (Gen. 6:7)

“Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man” (Num. 31:17)

“Put to death men and women, children and infants” (1 Sam. 15:2-3)

And these six passages are just a small sampling of the Hebrew God portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures. There are many more. One could compare this God to Satan or Hitler rather than a Father-figure with eternal love. But if the Jewish God is based on sacred ancient traditions and scriptures, and these passages were purposely kept and passed-on by the educated religious élite over 13 centuries as “sacred”, then can this trait of the Hebrew God ever be overlooked? It begs the question, is it any wonder why Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Iraq have been at war, or at least political enemies, for 2,000 years? They follow a violent, jealous, dividing, warring God! Why?

Under this light, my metaphor – the holy Ganges River – has its early tributaries contaminated and we are not even past the first third of the river-timeline.

Christianity – The Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse

Even though the Christian New Testament is the ~~contaminated~~ offspring of the above Hebrew Scriptures, traditions, monotheism, and laws, their decrees of adherence cannot be misunderstood. For instance:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”” (John 14:6)

Tomb of the Garden, Jerusalem

In case there might be the slightest doubt of the implications of this verse (one of several), according to the early Judaic-Christian élite gospel writers, who many followers today believe are the inspired direct (God-breathed) words of the one and only almighty God, anyone other than a publicly proclaimed, spirit-filled Christian, has no entitlement, no ear to or heart from the one and only God in Heaven. In other words, this Christian God embitters and ignores everyone on Earth who isn’t “Christian.” Where does this theology originate I wonder?

Because the Christian-faith is downstream of Hebrew theology and Scripture over several centuries and cultural influences, here are a few problematic scriptural tenets:

Who, if any, have ever seen God?
“No one has seen God at any time…” (John 1:18)

“But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.” (Exodus 24:11)

“So Jacob called the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”” (Gen. 32:30)

Does this God love or hate sinners?
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” (Psalm 5:4-5)

How does one acquire eternal salvation?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace…” (Rom. 11:6)

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)

Is a sinful creature created by a sinful Creator?
“(for you shall worship no other God, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),” (Exo. 34:14)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,” (Gal. 5:19-20)

If it isn’t apparent that the Christian New Testament has far too many baffling ancient oral and written tenets passed down to it from several writers from several centuries, then click here for a more complete (1,588 to be exact) list of contradictions.

It should come as no surprise that the Christian gospels, acts, and epistles – the Varanasi portion of the holy Ganges River if you will – cannot possibly be the pure perfect water of life and salvation as the original Neolithic, Indus, Mesopotamian, or Egyptian headwaters. Or is “purest water” even possible? Those four earliest civilizations didn’t have alphabets! Communication was done by voice, song, body/hand motions, and epigraphs; a much more emotional form of communication primarily for governing, protection, and survival.

Islam – The Quran and Hadith

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

I go on record admitting that as a Westerner, born in the United States and having traveled to most of the world EXCEPT Asia and those portions of northern and eastern Africa that are Muslim, I have a very limited understanding and knowledge of primary Islam. Therefore, it is quite difficult to get a concise consensual explanation of Islam from various sources in the West. Yet, this quandary falls in line with the point of this post: with so vast and so old a plethora of tributaries feeding the Ganges River, and Islam being at or near the river’s outfall of Abrahamic religions and tenets, it should not be surprising. Islam too is not a monolithic religion and no one Muslim behaves as another. Yes, the river has become quite convoluted now.

Nevertheless, I want to be as fair and objective as possible. And who better to explain Islam than thousands of Muslims in a Gallup International poll inside 35 predominantly Muslim countries, and released by Unity Productions Foundation:

Another popular explanation of primary Islam is the plaque or card-flyer composed by Enver Musad in 1995 called The Truth About Islam. You may find it here. Unfortunately, like all the major world religions, not every Muslim adheres to one summary or interpretations of the Quran…again, supporting this post.

For the sake of time, space, and effort I will again condense the stigmas of Islam down to my three major issues:

#1 – Islam’s earliest traditions and tenets come from ~~contaminated~~ problematic roots, as I’ve already explained.

#2 – The status and role of women (Sharia) in many Muslim countries.
It was only as recent as May 2005 (effective in 2007) that Kuwait allowed their women the right to vote and contest elections; and Kuwait is considered one of the more Westernized Islāmic nations. Most Muslim nations still do not give women political or social equality; a practice which has apparently continued since about 640 CE after the Quran was written. Why has it taken Muslim men some 1,400 years to interpret the Quran and resolve this? Then again, it has taken the Christian world almost as long to rectify it as well. Ah, the woes of an entirely contaminated holy river.

Corporal punishment of “rebellious” women has been a widely accepted practice based upon chapter 4, verse 34 of the Quran for centuries. However, only over the last several decades has it come under intense scrutiny. A simple Googling of the verse (e.g. WikiIslam’s translation) demonstrates the confusion among Muslim scholars. Whether it is now changing or not doesn’t compare to the 1,400 years of cultural Sharia, i.e. the upstream waters.

#3 – How same-sex equality is viewed by Islam and the Quran.
The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) list countries that enforce corporal punishment or imprisonment upon same-sex relationships and activities; the majority are Muslim countries.

As I’ve inferred in a couple of my posts and directly challenged scientifically the errancy of anti-same-sex, pro inequality groups and laws in my post Sexual & Gender Ambiguity: My Once Gross Ignorance, I take serious issue with any group or nation that allows the violation of personal civil-rights to choose their sexual activity or partner regardless of gender. There simply isn’t the scientific facts to support such bigotry, hate, or even passive intolerance. Typically, the language of fervent religiosity, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, is evidently “above” mundane mortal science; as if Scripture and theology are impregnable and infallible. Science is sub-standard and unable to emit truths about this life, this planet, and its brilliant inhabitants.

At least the holy Scriptures of the three major Abrahamic religions all agree on the dubious “abomination.” Specifically in the Quran, Sura 4:20-21, 7:80-84, 11:78-81, 26:162-168, 27:55-57, and 29:28-31 all generally infer separation from God and society. The Muslim Hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad but not broadly endorsed as authentic by all Muslim scholars) is more pronounced on its abomination and punishment according to Sharia. At the very least, Islamic culture and society is intolerant of same-sex behaviors and relationships. This position is entirely because it is the offspring of Christianity and Judaism, the upstream. These three issues are just a sampling of other problematic edicts I find with Islam and monotheistic faiths.

* * * * * * * * * *

You might be asking why any of this is relevant. It is relevant because most of the domestic and world political and social problems, including atrocities, are caused by ~~ignorance~~ ill-founded prejudices, elitism, segregation, and egocentric trans-generational teaching of those three ill-conceptions. Religious elitism, often discreetly projected behind political or military agendas, has fueled most of humanity’s darkest most horrid events and eras.

Assuming the a priori condition of a God, one God does indeed exist, an additional question that bears equal importance is this: If you proclaim intimate knowledge of and experience with a one and only God in Heaven, then specifically and unanimously(?) how has this knowledge and experience come to you?

To my knowledge there are only two methods of revelation and experience from an unseen spirit-God: (1) miraculous or paranormal experience(s), or (2) through their faith’s biblical scriptures and other followers. Based on these two methods, it begs the following question: Which is most reliable and most believable?

In my personal experience, when followers/believers are questioned about their biblical foundations of faith, they eventually – sometimes quickly or slowly based upon their apologetic savvy – resort to the “miraculous or paranormal” experience, which is not only harder to acutely examine by unaffiliated outsiders, but just as difficult for the believer/follower to explain! Why is this? It is exhausting because the vast majority of miraculous/paranormal experiences are extremely unique to that one person’s life, personality, and immediate environs, and in almost all cases those experiences are different from other followers/believers.

This does not mean those experiences are untrue or any less valuable to the world and life of others – especially if they turn the person into a more loving giving human being for a greater number of people – and this is fine. It becomes highly individualized, which should be an attached liability clause upon its veracity. Hence, it should be kept strictly an individual “faith.” But pushing (forcing?) it beyond that does make it impossible to standardize, prove, or unite “one true religious faith” – the one ~~lie~~ belief that has bred immeasurable death and suffering throughout all of mankind’s history! The thousands upon thousands of various sects and denominations of the world’s faiths bear witness that there is not and never has been one true faith.

With regard to a scriptural foundation, I have adequately shown the futility in portraying a unanimous, in-perfect-harmony life with all other “identical believers”. I have also written two historically-centered posts (view the History category for those posts, especially Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ, The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus, and Correcting the Gospels of Jesus) illuminating the less-known cultural and political factors influencing early Christianity during and after the sacking of Jerusalem in 69-70 CE by the Roman legions and Empire.

All world religions have their time-specific, contributing cultural, political, and economic influences upon their infancy and roots. Interestingly, they often have less to do with miraculous, 1-in-a-million “divine events” or teachings, and more to do with mere survival or progressive status. Think about that.

This returns us to my metaphor…

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” He could not have been more accurate, both in the literal sense of a river and in the story of man and man’s perception of the world told through his many varied religious faiths and just as many deconstructions and reconstructions of spiritual truth. Like a river, the religious water has never been the same, never as “pure” as the headwater. There are as many contaminants as there are purifiers and certainly no river is better or untouched than another.

Besides, water is only one small eco-system in an infinite table of macro-systems in an even larger more infinite cosmos of systems. As I continue to traverse this Ganges River, I repeatedly ask why the big puppet shows about a mythical deity no one group of puppeteers can define with harmony or consensus. Though Heraclitus taught his principle over 2,500 years ago, it rings truer today among naïve, unexamined fundamental religiosity.

(paragraph break)

Addendum — After chatting with a blog-friend about this post, I realized the importance, no the paramount risk, we as Americans, as well as the human race, will one day face if we (Americans particularly) do NOT throw out our imperialistic, colonialist mentality (revolutionary heritage?) regarding foreign policy and perceptions. As the excellent video Inside Islam reports, as true as our domestic problems will become EVERYONE’S problems nationally, it is just as true globally with all races, all religions, all nationalities — because due to our insatiable imposing colonial-imperial self-interested heritage, ala the 1948 creation of Israel in Palestine as one example, we must NOW deal with the fires, the monsters America helped create around the world…not treating “them” Arab foreigners as ourselves or without full respect, without the highest tolerance and dignity offered.

On that note, and as I hoped I have conveyed, our personal, national, or “religious” differences are a result of our own pollution, contamination, and apathy, ignorance, violence… whether passive or direct. Let’s disarm ourselves by simply starting ‘at the Himalayas’. Or better yet, start with the Universe/Multiverse and cosmos, the onset, the dawn, the time and space before time and space, which much later feeds the Himalayas, which feeds the “Ganges”.

“Hello. I am a human-being from planet Earth. How can we collaborate and serve each other?”

Peace for you and all.

(paragraph break)

A Supreme Decision

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Professor Taboo

On June 26, 2013 in a landmark decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision in DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples, was unconstitutional. This decision marks the beginning of the end of religious-based groups and politicians’ using the government, the laws, taxes, and marital benefits to discriminate against same-sex couples and dictate what is and isn’t endorsed by law in private individual homes. The Supreme Court also dismissed a case by California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative trying to define marriage as between one man and one woman. American President Barack Obama applauded the highest court saying the decision strikes down “discrimination enshrined in law.” Yes, the ruling is a historic victory for civil rights in America. The seeds of theocracy were thwarted once again!

But the decision, the debate, and its roots are sometimes lost or glossed over in the hype, emotion, and most certainly the mythical history and theological mumbo-jumbo. The intention of this post is to remind everyone what the controversy is really about: the separation of church (individual’s faith) and state… as well as how the neurological, biological, and embryonic evidence increasingly show that love, marriage, and sex are clearly NOT defined by or governed by some unanimous(?) religious ideology, theology, or book. On the contrary, nature seems to dictate truths to humanity as humanity’s understanding evolves. And in the case of love, marriage, sexuality, Proposition 8, and DOMA “nature” is screaming at humanity to evolve and revamp its understanding of human nature inside nature.

Products of Millions Not Either Or

As I wrote about in my April 2011 post Sexual & Gender Ambiguity: My Once Gross Ignorance, one out of 100 births do not fall under traditional male-female physical identifiers. On a molecular scale one out of 1,666 births has no clear XX or XY chromosome structure. In other words, the gender and sexual makeup of these inter-sexed babies (who by the way grow into adults) inherit from their embryonic stage and beyond thousands upon millions of combinations of neurological and hormonal designs. If sexuality or gender were black or white, then nature would show this consistently by having either hetero males or hetero females, nothing in between. But clearly this isn’t the case and certainly isn’t any “law”.

For millennia mankind has only understood the visible world, or a world that could be observed and examined by our five senses, including genitalia and breasts. Not until the last two to three decades has medical science revealed compellingly the incredible neurological-hormonal diversity within each of us. It is a big part of what makes each of us a unique one in 7.13 billion. And inter-sexed births are only the VISIBLE evidence of this unimaginable diversity! Every single one of us have a slightly different feeling about attraction, at any given time in any given circumstance – compounding the complexity even more – and we act upon the attraction differently (if slightly) each time.

For example, some men are more aggressive than others, sadly even to the point of harassment or rape. That is one extreme in a select group or type of males found all over the world. Some women have the same level of sexual aggressiveness or sensuality while others have a more reserved approach or interest or frequency. Many times these attractions are affected by environment. But just as equally they are influenced by our internal neurological and hormonal blueprint. And if “nature” can sometimes vary the genitalia, the macro-scale, then it certainly stands to reason that nature can vary the internal designs, the micro-scale.

Genetic or Lifestyle Choice?

What does medical science show us? Three fields of science breach the sexual-orientation issue: epigenetics, neurohormonal theory, and pheromone theory.

Epigenetics, the study of changes in gene manifestation or expression, over the last couple of decades has revealed that not all traits are INherited but heritable by external or maternal mechanisms; e.g. a pregnant mother shouldn’t drink alcohol or smoke at the risk of fetal defects. Maternal mechanisms, including ancestral, certainly influence inborn traits even though they are not part of the DNA sequencing. The point to consider is the diverse multitude of influential prenatal factors.

Neurohormonal theory, the study of embryonic homosexual and heterosexual brain development, has increasingly shown that not only do we ALL start out with the default “female” brain and that we ALL start out sexually as unisex, but during the second trimester there are a multitude of genes triggering or inhibiting hormones and enzymes for both the brain and hypothalamus as well as the sexual organs. As I wrote in my February 2013 post Toss the 2-D Glasses, structural size differences of the anterior hypothalamus, the organ which regulates sexual behavior, has been observed between heterosexual and homosexual males. This deserves repeating: there is indeed a structural size difference measured between hetero and homosexual males. It is not merely a post-natal adolescent or adult life-choice. Reread the previous three sentences to allow it to sink in.

The brain registers love as love, despite gender.

Pheromone theory, the study of released airborne molecules which elicit certain social reactions from a member of the same species, has increasingly shown different secretions and excretions will elicit different sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual males and females. These amounts and different chemical makeups (primarily estrogen steroid derivative or EST) are all regulated by the anterior hypothalamus. This EST regulation has been confirmed in several varying species of laboratory animals, as well as in human males and females.

Scientists decipher 3 billion-year-old genomic fossils. Click on image for larger view & explanation.

The brain (or the anterior hypothalamus) registers love as love, despite gender or antiquated traditions.

Whether one thinks the scientific data is preliminary, compelling, or conclusive, at the very least neuroscientists and embryologists agree that sex-genes and sexual hormones are unpredictably developed and expressed under very complex systems. Therefore, sexuality and orientation cannot be rigidly oversimplified into A and/or B formulas or law. Nature and the scientific data simply do not reflect that position.

Shaky Religious Foundations

Despite the U.S. Constitution stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” much of what proponents of DOMA and Proposition 8, like the National Organization for Marriage, construct their stance and subsequent law-making on religious traditions. I have written numerous posts regarding the fallacy of religious monism. This also includes the global fallacy of “biblical inerrancy” claimed by Jewish, Christian or Islamic fundamentalists alike. I will later be publishing another article on biblical inerrancy called The Holy River.

I have also discussed the social dangers in preaching and teaching exclusiveness and elitism, which directly or indirectly fragment unity and nurture ill-will and intolerance to diversity – diversity confirmed in a multitude of life systems, Earth systems, atomic and subatomic systems, and cosmic systems, but even more importantly in spiritual or metaphysical systems! Without having to repeat much of what I’ve already covered, this is a short list of those related posts…

Origins of Judeo-Christianity and Its “Holy” Bible:
Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ
The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus
Canaanites Killed & Removed From Native Lands
Correcting the Gospels of Jesus
Whoops! Not God’s Wrath After All?

On the science of spirituality, the paranormal or metaphysical:
Connectivity – Part 1
Connectivity – Part 2
Connectivity – Back to Physics Class
Connectivity – The New Paradigm

(paragraph separation)

* * * * * * * * * *

Unquestionably nature, or more precisely human nature, cannot be “cured” or “cleansed” of what is perceived morally as right or wrong. Nature is oblivious to morality and we should give eternal thanks for that… treating all humans as our equal.

(paragraph separation)

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.