To a Disgusting Arkansan Candidate

Today, I caught wind that a woman running for congress in Arkansas ran an ad that makes me gag.  I intend to write a letter to Mary, the candidate, letting her know that she will never have my vote so long as she continues her bigotry.  Here is the advertisement:

Democrat Party backs Gay Marriage on Party Platform

This past weekend the Democrat party backed Gay marriage for the first time on their party platform. The choice this November on moral issues could not be clearer.  Do you support Gay marriage and abortion?  The democrat party does.  Thankfully here in Arkansas we passed the defense of marriage act defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  But as we have seen in Washington with President Obama's refusal to defend DOMA just having the law doesn't prevent Officials from ignoring it or the  will of the people who passed it.  Case in point here is Governor Beebe's latest appointment to the State School Board.  Dr. Jay Barth is a liberal political science professor from Hendrix who happens to be a homosexual activist and married to another man. I have not heard a single word of opposition to this appointment from any of the democratic legislators in Arkansas. On the case for abortion the democrat party in Arkansas killed 10 prolife bills proposed by republicans in committee this past legislative session and brag about it. I am a republican because they represent my Christian values, faith in God and what the bible teaches about life and marriage. I am a business owner and I am passionate about seeing our state prosperous, but my hopes of seeing the laws in Arkansas reflecting our Christian family values about abortion and continuing to reflect them on marriage drive me even harder to win this election in November!"

Dear Mary:

I want to respond thoughtfully to your campaign advertisement, and I hope you'll read my response as carefully as I read your advertisement.  It should be noted that the "Democrat party" did nothing.  It's called the Democratic Party.  You're right, though.  The choice on moral issues could not be any more black and white.  I want to know how you live with yourself.  The democrats support gay marriage?  I don't.  I support everyone's right to marry.  Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, etc., are all human, just like you.  You are on the wrong side of morality, Mary.  I'm going to assume that you aren't racist.  Well, actually, I'm going to assume that you advocate racial equality in public, even if you think minorities are inferior.  Now, imagine the kind of outrage you would be met with if you replaced "Gay marriage" with "interracial marriage."  How silly would you look if you tried to deny brown-eyed people the right to marry other brown-eyed people?

Homosexual individuals are no more responsible for their sexual preference than blue-eyed people are for their blue eyes.  You may be under the impression that people choose to be homosexual.  To that, I have to ask how it matters.  Additionally, if you do think people choose it, you are simply wrong.  Every reputable scientist can attest to that.  If you deny people the right to marry who they love, you are no different than the racists who claimed that allowing a black person to marry a white person is immoral and would ruin marriage for everyone else.  It's time to put the bigotry aside, Mary.

You seem to be opposed to Dr. Barth's appointment to the school board, because he is a homosexual.  I would really like to know how it matters.  What if you received a letter saying that you should be opposed because you are a female?  I understand that the Christian bible condemns homosexual behavior, but it also condemns you, a woman, from teaching or holding authority over a man in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.  How dare you use the exact same book to condemn this man?  Does he do his job?  Does the fact he is sexually and emotionally attracted to men somehow change his job performance?

I am of the opinion that you are far less qualified to hold a seat in congress than Dr. Barth is to be on the school board.  You are putting your own beliefs on a higher pedestal than the rights of the citizens you wish to serve.  How dare you claim to be qualified for the job you seek?

On the case of abortion, until you take action to right the real moral injustices of the world, should you really worry about these issues?  Of course, I'm sure your response to that question will be that the killing of children should be a high priority for any moral person, and the Christian bible backs you up.  I would like to know, specifically, where the bible condemns abortion.  Perhaps you'd appreciate Psalm 137:9?

"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock."

It seems that the very same book you use to oppose abortion isn't too opposed to infanticide, so why are you?  The children who are killed in the bible were already born, rather than fetuses.  I guess that makes sense, given the religious right's opposition to helping children who have been born.

I suggest that, if you plan to use your religion to dictate how everyone else should live, you learn what your bible says on these topics.  According to Matthew 10:35-38, Jesus specifically says that people who do not leave their families, take up the cross, and follow him are not worthy of his grace.  In 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, Paul makes it very clear that the only reason people should get married is to avoid being sent to hell for the sin of lust.

Again, I submit that you have no authority to speak on morality, Mary.  You clearly are a bigot.  You are not a selfless person that an elected official should be.  You, like everyone else who reads the bible, pick and choose what you believe should be enforced.  Under no circumstance will I ever cast a vote in your direction.  I could never vote for a person who believes such vile things, and espouses them with the grammar of a second grade student.

I thank you for your time, Mary.  I hope you find happiness by letting others be happy.

Things To Remember When Debating

I've been quiet lately on here.  I wanted to let the Aurora Shooting slide out of the spotlight, but during the downtime, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking.  It's occurred to me that we, the atheist community, do a few things that I don't quite like.  You're all free to disagree with me on any of these points, but I think there are a few things we could do better when interacting and debating religious folk.  I've noticed that, especially when we have the bible quoted to us, we quote it back.  Oftentimes it'll be an exchange like this:

Theist:  Well, of course, you know that Leviticus says that gays are an abomination.

 Atheist:  True, but it also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish, cut your hair, etc.

 As true as this statement from our hypothetical atheist is, it does something that should be avoided.  Quoting the bible back in this fashion actually lends credibility to the very book we seek to show is fallible.  There are times when quoting from the bible is a great technique.  When we point to the contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and scientific misunderstandings, we discredit the infallibility of the bible.  I think I can say with some amount of certainty that atheists generally understand how very errant the bible is, so we should use this to our advantage.

 Another thing we tend to do is get angry and resort to insults.  We know that an ad hominem is not a valid argument; or we should, at least.  In fact, I see atheists call their opponents out for using the personal attack, then turn around and use it a few comments later.  In my experience, theists use this more often than atheists, but the fact remains that it's not appropriate on either side.  If either side expects any ground to be gained, attacking the people rather than the arguments only stops the conversation.  I give the benefit of the doubt to both sides of the argument, and I'll assume they both know that the ad hominem is a bad idea, but sometimes, during the heat of the moment, it's easier to call someone a jackass douchemonkey rather than point out the jackassery douchemonkey-shenanigans of the argument.  Most theistic religions espouse peace.  Theists, do you want to be the angry vengeful kind of person your god(s) say are bad?   Atheists, do you want to seem irrational?  I rest my case.

A third issue I take with how atheists take to the debate floor is similar to the previous one.  Humility.  If you have no response to your opponent, admit it.  There is absolutely no shame in saying, "I don't know."  Don't we often talk about how there's no shame in science not knowing all the answers?  If it did, there would be no more need for science.  We are no different.  While there has never been a sufficient argument for the existence of any god at all, it's doubtful we know how to respond to every single argument for the existence of a god.  There's no shame in that.  We should admit it, and, if we can, come back with an answer.

The final thing I'd like us to take into consideration is how we respond.  Many comments end up being a full paragraph, and it's important to notice that not everyone understands how paragraphs work.  There are often many different ideas and thoughts that should be addressed within each of these paragraphs.  With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we break up each topic into its own section.  For example, if we see that one paragraph, comment, or whatever has arguments x, y, and z, we should format our response like this:

Argument X.

Your response to that specific argument or thought.

Argument Y

Your response to this argument

Argument Z

Do I really need to explain again?

Not only does this clarify what you're responding to, it should eliminate any confusion on both sides.  This will eliminate people taking things out of context.  In your response to Argument X, you might have said something that pertained to a different argument, and your opponent could take that to meant that your response to this argument was actually a response to a different argument, and therefore makes no sense.  I seek to eliminate these issues, not only for clarity, but because it also allows each side to be extremely aware if one argument wasn't addressed.

I implore all theists who defend theism to follow these guidelines, too.  You don't have all the answers, either.   There's no need in name-calling, or faulty logic.  If we can discuss these things peacefully, I'm sure we'll cover much more ground.