To me, same-sex marriage is a no-brainer and long overdue. Equal treatment under the law is not a radical idea. Same-sex couples should have the same rights, benefits, and protections as opposite-sex couples.

The New York State bill to legalize same-sex marriage would not require religious institutions to perform same-sex or any other marriage they deem religiously incorrect. Religious freedom allows religions to discriminate and make rules for its faithful, but not for those outside the faith. The government has no right to make decisions about religious marriage and religions have no right to make decisions about civil marriage.

Religious freedom goes both ways. It makes no more sense for a religion to decide on my civil rights than it does for me to decide which dead people should be declared saints. I’m troubled by the way some religions discriminate against women, against gays and lesbians, against those of different or no faith, and against all who don’t subscribe to a very narrow religious doctrine. But as an advocate for freedom of religion, I acknowledge their right to take such positions.

Some give biblical justification that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as a couple of generations ago they gave biblical justification that marriage should be between members of the same race. I could just as easily give biblical justification for marriage being between a man and no more than 700 women (I Kings 11:3). Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, which means his brain was not his most remarkable organ. Those who wish to make civil laws compatible with a particular interpretation of a so-called holy book might think about moving to one of the many theocratic countries.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)

The primary positive outcome I can envision for a ban on male circumcision is that Jews and Muslims would finally have a cause on which they could work together. If it starts with a piece of flesh, perhaps it will one day lead to peace.

That said, I personally oppose all medically unnecessary operations and circumcision is one such procedure. However small the risks, there are risks. I also personally oppose the use of illegal drugs (and oppose, even more strongly, the use of some legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol in excess). My preventive solution in all these cases is education rather than bans.

Alcohol prohibition was instituted in the United States in 1919, by passage of the Eighteenth Amendment. This violence-producing and unenforceable prohibition was wisely repealed in 1933 with passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. President Nixon in 1971 declared a War on Drugs, with the same problems as our war on alcohol. Unfortunately, this losing war continues even after 40 years of increased violence.

Does anyone doubt that a ban on circumcision would lead to more medical problems because the procedure would be performed underground by less qualified cutters? Circumcision, like clean needle exchanges for those injecting illegal drugs, is far less harmful than passing a law to ban it would be.

Continue Reading (via On Faith)

Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said in an interview with the UK Guardian published Monday that he rejects the idea of heaven, calling it a "fairy story" for people afraid to die. Hawking also wrote in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" that he believes God was not "necessary" for the creation of the universe and that "spontaneous creation‚" instead explains existence. Hawking seems confident in his conclusion about God, but then again so do believers. Who is right? Can God and science co-exist?

As accomplished a cosmologist as Stephen Hawking is, no scientist would ever declare, “Hawking said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Scientists require evidence, not an appeal to authority.

We don’t yet know with near scientific certainty how our universe began or whether we live in just one of multiple universes spontaneously created from nothing, as Hawking argues. This sounds incredible, as do all origin stories, but at least Hawking gives scientific arguments to back up his view. In comparing science with traditional religion, the most striking difference is not the conclusions that are reached but the different methods used to arrive at those conclusions. Scientists test their own and other theories and try to find facts that support or disprove them. Traditional religion, on the other hand, usually demands blind faith and reacts negatively to facts that conflict with doctrine.

Countless scientific discoveries over the centuries have changed god beliefs. Most people no longer attribute natural phenomena like thunder, eclipses, earthquakes, and floods to supernatural causes. Scientists know there will be a total solar eclipse on Dec. 26, 2038 and it won’t be a sign of God’s displeasure with our behavior.

That science can’t disprove a god’s existence does not constitute evidence for that god’s existence, anymore than not disproving unicorns is evidence that unicorns exist. But the more science advances, the less we need attribute to a god. The French mathematician and astronomer, Laplace, did groundbreaking work on the stability of the solar system. When the Emperor Napoleon asked Laplace why he didn’t mention a creator, Laplace said, “I have no need of that hypothesis.” Perhaps one day a future Laplace might explain to a future Napoleon why the origin of our universe needs no God hypothesis.

Continue reading (via On Faith)

I don’t rejoice at Osama bin Laden’s death, but I’m relieved he is dead. He can no longer mastermind or inspire the deaths of others. However, I cringe when I see people waving American flags as they cheer and shout "USA! USA!" War is a last resort, not an Olympic sport.

Many of Osama’s followers believe he was engaged in a holy war, died bravely as a martyr, and is now enjoying the fruits of heaven along with the first of his 72 virgins. But by some unlikely chance, had Osama repented of his nefarious deeds and become a born again Christian just before he died, many Christians would believe that Osama is now in heaven, comforted by the Blessed Virgin.

I don’t care what ludicrous beliefs people have, except when such beliefs cause harm to innocent people. I don’t believe in any gods and I don’t believe we can have good holy wars. Our goal should be to prevent more deaths overall, not to “win” by having more of their people die than our people. At some level, I grieve whenever a life is lost.

Continue reading (via "On Faith")