Left In Lowell

I’ve been interested in the race for Jamie Eldridge’s open Rep seat in the 37th Middlesex, partly because I know we have a great candidate to replace him, Jen Benson, but also because her opponent is the former “independent,” now Republican, Kurt Hayes (who raised a lot of his money from anti-gay forces where “nearly 40% [of his] itemized contributions come from pro-discrimination donors who live outside of the 37th Middlesex state House district”). Of course, Hayes doesn’t like to admit he’s Republican, neither putting it in prominent display on his little website, nor anywhere on his literature, but he represents some of the worst in Republicans. (I still don’t understand the state Republican tactic - run candidates who are not really moderate. They would fare better if they ran candidates palatable to the average MA voter.)

But, the question needs to be asked, is Kurt Hayes for teaching creationism in schools? Because if he is, I think the voters of 37th Middlesex should know about it.

The question comes up first because of Hayes’ membership in Trinity Church of Bolton (no, it’s not you, their website sucks and is half broken). The tenor of the church is severely fundamentalist, and I have listened to some of the sermons (available in MP3 here). One in particular is quite disturbing, dated July 27, 2008. It starts with a reading of Genesis 1, and then the pastor David Smith begins his sermon with a list of science theories on the origins of the universe dating back to Kant in the 18th century, then goes into some length on the Big Bang Theory (emphasis is his):

The one that perhaps most of us are familiar with would be the Big Bang Theory, it’s about 50 years old now. Became very popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and even today, it recieves a lot of funding for those who want to research this particular theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or a plasma ball of some sort, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. No one really knows where this cosmic egg came from, but there it was. And for no inexplicable reason, this cosmic egg exploded. As matter and radiation expanded, so this theory says, that it cooled sufficiently for elements to form as protons and neutrons, and electrons, combined to form hydrogen. These gases expanded radially, in all directions, until they collapsed upon themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction, forming an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe. How many of you have heard of the Big Bang Theory? I think probably most of us have in some form or fashion.

He then lists the “flaws” with the big bang theory (the one where it expects uniformity, not “clumping”), mentions in passing the Plasma Theory, then says,

There are many other theories of the beginning of the universe which come and go with different passing generations. Now since there was no one there to observe it, we can never know for sure how the world began. Unless there was someone there who could report back to us on how it happened.

And actually there is someone, isn’t there? God himself. And he records for us how he created the heavens and the earth in the book of Genisis. The Bible begins not trying to describe that God existed, it simply states that God exists and the very first verse in the Bible says it this way: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” The Book of Genesis stands alone for accounting for the actual creation of space and mass and time continuum.

His conclusion on the age of the earth?

Sometimes we like to try to date it. And certainly from my perspective I know that in a church like Trinity there’s a lot of different views on how old the earth is, and nobody really knows, but from my perspective and looking at the geneologies, even if they are incomplete, from Adam on, if you add a few other people along the way, you come up with an age of the universe of around 10,000 years old. Otherwise the whole geneology is worthless, and it’s pointless. Why in the world would all these names be back to Adam if it wasn’t some kind of at least close approximation of that.

Some crazy stuff. But par for the course for these churches, and certainly he can believe whatever he wants to believe, all evidence to the contrary.

But does Mr. Hayes subscribe to this belief, and if so, does he want our public schools teaching it? There are scattered reports of him approaching voters and telling them he’s for teaching creationism in schools, and given his membership, and indeed, leadership within this church (he’s head of the “Boy’s Brigade” - who came up with that militant name anyway?) it does make you wonder.

No one bothers to ask the question. So I will. Mr. Hayes, are you for or against the teaching of creationism in our public schools?

If You Can’t Vote No, Abstain

Dear Senator Panagiotakos,
I’m writing this open letter in a public forum to ask you for something very serious. I’m asking for your help to preserve the civil rights of tax-paying and voting citizens of the Commonwealth. I am referring to the inevitable Constitutional Convention where, for the second time, legislators will vote whether or not to let civil rights of our gay neighbors, family members, and friends be decided by ballot. I’m talking about the anti-gay-marriage amendment.

I, and many of your constituents, have begged, pleaded, and cajoled you to change your mind on this issue. I’ve even used some strong language - which I still stick by - and many efforts to appeal to your logic and reason on this matter. It is obvious you have an unshakable conviction, which I can only presume is a personal religious one, and despite the fact it saddens me greatly, I have to respect that.

You have been strongly progressive on a lot of issues and I’ve been proud of your work more often that I’ve disagreed with you. It is your progressive spirit I appeal to now.

I am hoping to convince you, then, to abstain from voting on this matter.

I understand that you cannot bring yourself to vote “no” to the ballot initiative. A No vote, of course, allows for gay marriages to continue to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. It will not change your religion’s right not to marry gays in the church, but merely carry civil weight of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage that I myself have enjoyed going on seven years now. But we’ve exhausted all those arguments, so I will merely plead this: the people of the Commonwealth overwhelmingly wants this issue put to rest. They do not want another two years of a biting, hateful campaign. They don’t want any more out-of-state interference in our Commonwealth’s affairs; they do not want a vote. By voting “yes” on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative, you will be subjecting your constituents to inevitable media campaigns and harassment. And it will be that much easier to hurt our gay brothers and sisters with words…and maybe even worse.

If you go on the record with a “yes,” I believe your conscience will not be easy. In order to satisfy your religious convictions you would have put hate on the state ballot, put civil rights up for popular vote. What if interracial marriage had been put on the ballot in the midst of the civil rights era? Would that have been fair or just?

The bar for allowing a ballot initiative to change the state constitution is too low. By abstaining, you will keep your conscience clear on both accounts. If you cannot bring yourself to vote “no,” please bring yourself to allow the rest of the legislature to vote their conscience to prevent a civil rights disaster. You will have had no part in it, save to allow the Commonwealth to move on as it has, working on the important issues of the day, instead of continuing the distraction of hate and bigotry.

Thank you for your service,
Lynne L
Left in Lowell

Today’s Lowell City Council meeting will be preceded by the Rules Sub-Committee meeting (5:30, televised on LTC, Channel 10). There is only one item on the agenda, the “Prayer Issue.”

A coalition of members of different religions, the Greater Lowell Interfaith Leadership Alliance, requested that the City Council review its tradition of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of their meetings. Today Lowell is truly a city of extensive religious diversity; unfortunately this prayer does not reflect that wealth.

All indications are that the matter might be voted on tonight by the full Council. I do not know if it is in their official rules or it was a tradition that began over 4 decades ago.

By the way, this “tradition” of reciting this particular Christian prayer is not followed at the Council’s Sub-Committee meetings. Also, none of the City’s regulatory boards recite the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of their deliberations.

Last August when the topic was first raised, Lynne had a lengthy post, Separation of Church and State but not in Lowell, which stirred a good deal of debate on LiL. Everyone, even our commentators who are deeply religous agreed that the Lord’s Prayer should not be recited out loud, in unison by our City Council. I do not think these sentiments have changed.

There are many options being floated around, so we may end up with 9 different proposals tonight. The City solicitor is to render an opinion today on the matter so her judgment may impact the decision. Hopefully it will make it easy for the majority to change this tradition by opting for a moment of silence instead.

Tim Little in the comments of BMG pointed out this gem op-ed by Sam Harris at Boston.com, titled “Bad reasons to be good.” Of course, it will thoroughly offend some of you, but read on if you think you can take it (bold mine):

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don’t have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature’s brain and its experience of the world.

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so-called “moral” questions — such as gay marriage — where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs.
…
But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the suffering of others. In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry.

The fact is, I frequently find myself acting more compassionate than some of my Christian counterparts. But I don’t gain my compassion from some flawed external source. I get it from a common ground of - as Harris puts it - the reality of human and animal suffering.

A true modern Christian would be anti-war, against the death penalty, and for large social programs, governmental or otherwise, to help the poor. Abortion is a weird one, as it’s not something that was really mentioned in the Bible, insofar as the concept didn’t exist as it does today. And yet Christians everywhere have apparently determined God’s feelings on that one as well, no matter what science says. And for centuries, adherents of the so-called compassionate monotheistic religions are responsible for much of the suffering through the centuries, whether that be leading men into brutal war against another religious group or persecuting homosexuals, women, or Jews.

I do understand that some people prefer a rigid set of rules and a structure to live by, and that they find this in religion. It is comforting for some people to have that external framework from which to relate to the world. This hierarchical authoritarian trait is exibited in a significant set of the human race, and not just the blind “far right” worshippers of George W. Bush. But knowledge is power…comprehending the basis for your own behavior is strangely freeing, and it doesn’t require you to reject your mindset; only expand and examine it, to reject it when it’s commonly destructive and embrace its strength when it’s productive.

Fact is, unless your brain is seriously malformed, humans of all personalities already have the tools within themselves to determine the scope of fairness in our laws, foreign and domestic priorities, and interpersonal relationships. We share ourselves through story and art and simple conversation; we know how to hurt feelings and we know how to heal wounds. We are an advanced society that has the capability to discuss morals on terms larger than any one religion, and to have certain universal concepts to guide our hand. Religion has long claimed to be the only realm of morality, but a deeper look shows that it has more often been wielded as a weapon against a person’s inner natural morality, which is to alleviate or prevent suffering in our fellow humans.

I am a moral creature, I know when I’ve committed right and I know when I’ve done something wrong. I don’t need books assumed to be inspired by any god or gods to tell me what my heart already knows.