For those who, like me 5 minutes ago, have no idea what this refers to, an Iranian cleric attributed the “immodest” dressing of women to the increase in earthquakes.

Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes.”

As you can read in the article, a woman named Jennifer McCreight launched an effort to prove Sedighi wrong.  On April 26th, tens of thousands of women intend to wear their most revealing attire, figuring that if Sedighi is right, an earthquake should surely follow soon afterwards.

Chances are that nothing will happen, and that Sedighi is either a complete moron, or a ideological predator attempting to appeal to people’s sexual conservatism – through fear – in order to recruit more people to his particular moral code.

But what if – what if! – an earthquake did take place shortly after April 26th?  Or even a month later?  It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility, given the seeming decrease in our planet’s tectonic stability.  Of course such an earthquake would have nothing to do with the “Boobquake”, and it would be just a coincidence, but can you imagine the fallout?

It’d actually be hilarious – a real cosmic sort of humor – except for the fact that earthquakes kill people.

But how much of a backfire against McCreight’s effort would that be?  For people already even remotely willing to believe Sedighi’s claims, this would only seal it in stone for them.  I can’t imagine McCreight herself would be too vocal about her experiment at that point.

In any case, as a heterosexual man (even as a committed ally to womanism), I am certainly looking forward to the 26th!

UPDATE (4/26/2010): I actually didn’t end up leaving the house on Boobquake day.  Oh well.  But even more interesting than all of the cleavage I missed is the 6.5 magnitude earthquake reported off the coast of Taiwan.  Apparently this is pretty standard seismic activity.  According to McCreight:

“No, the Taiwan earthquake is not statistically significant – yet.”

So no one’s connecting the quake to McCreight’s little (or, actually quite big in many cases) experiment just yet.  Still, it’s pretty funny.

Then as teenagers it is common for us to go through a rebellious phase – not necessarily acting outside of any established moral or ethical framework, but daring to venture out on our own, to establish our identities as individuals, and to explore for ourselves what constitutes “truth”. Sometimes we act like raving lunatics just to be contrary.

Then we enter adulthood, and invariably become more “grounded”, learning to temper our youthful passions, to focus that energy towards more “practical” pursuits.  We learn balance, objectivity, humility.  We are able – in most cases – to reconcile our personal views with the fact that others have different views.

We grow up.

It occurred to me recently that there may be a parallel between this maturation from childhood to adulthood, and people’s progression through different phases of belief and disbelief.  Of course not everyone has the journey through belief and/or disbelief, just as we don’t all mature at the same pace or experience the same things at any given point in our lives.  So the parallel I am drawing is meant to be generic and abstract, rather than a precise comparison.

For those of us who grow up in religious households, we are taught our parents’ beliefs, go to their church, temple, or mosque if they have one, and are saddled with our parents morals, ethics, and any baggage that might come with it.  We take what we are given at face value, accept it as truth, due to the trust we place in those that have proven themselves by caring for us.  But unlike our natural inevitable journey into adolescence, many people never push beyond the beliefs instilled in them during childhood, they do not dare to venture out on their own, to establish their own personal religious identity.

More often than not, those who do not “progress” beyond this stage are the fundamentalists of any given theology, the hardliners, the literalists.  These are people who retain their childhood stories but never learned to look at it with grown-up eyes, to appreciate things like subtlety, nuance, multiple interpretations – like only appreciating poetry where it rhymes, rather than being able to read between the lines.

For those that do move to the next phase, however,  some rebel violently against their former beliefs and institutions – or at least the most vile version or perception of those institutions.  Perhaps they rebel due to a falling out with a parent or preacher or other authority figure.  Perhaps because of some major discrepancy between what we’ve been told to think and what we’ve reasoned for ourselves or even directly experienced.  This discrepancy usually has some noteworthy psychological impact, forcing a person not just to let go of their beliefs, but to run away from them screaming and yelling.

These are people like the militant atheists and agnostics – those for whom it is not enough to simply disbelieve, but who feel compelled to attack those who do believe. Not all atheists fit this description as I’ll explain in the third phase below. Far from simply establishing themselves as individuals “free” of religion, they feel some pressing need to return to their old beliefs and institutions with venom and fire, to criticize and belittle them.  In this way they are just as tethered to those old institutions as they always were, their identities as atheists dependent upon there being a religion against which to rebel.

Just as angry teenagers do not listen to their parents’ reasoning, their attempts to defend their choices, militant atheists do not listen to the more rational believers, the liberal theologians.  They are too busy screaming and yelling.  They need to cast religion and religious people as villains against whom they must stand in opposition.  The ironic thing is that they become the very thing that they are trying to rebel against, like the worst nightmare of any rebellious teenager – to become just like their parents.

The new atheists, who attack a repugnant version of religion, use it to condemn all religion. They use it to deny the reality and importance of the religious impulse. They are curiously unable to comprehend those who found through their religious convictions the strength to stand up against injustice…The new atheists, like all fundamentalists, flee from complexity. They can cope with religion in its most primitive and abusive form. They are helpless when confronted by a faith that challenges their caricatures.

America’s New Fundamentalists pp. 33-34

My experience with this involved some evangelicals and their implication that my mother, for her experimenting with Buddhism and other religions, would be condemned to Hell.  Another example can be seen in the movie The God Who Wasn’t There, which presented itself as a critique of religion and the Jesus myth, but by the end revealed itself to be one man’s personal vendetta against his religious upbringing and parochial school.  Much like a teenager finally getting to tell her parents all the things they did wrong in raising her.

Finally, though, the incendiary passions of militant atheism, like adolescence, are tempered through a sort of rational – rather than physical – maturity.  We learn to read religion like poetry – to understand subtlety, nuance, interpretation.  We learn that no one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong, but that they simply are.  This is not to say that we become believers again, but we no longer categorically deny the possibility – or legitimacy – of believing again.  And should we choose not to believe, we are able to make peace with religion, to reconcile our disbelief with others’ belief, to accept that disbelief is merely another interpretation of our experience.

To clarify, I do not mean to imply any qualitative difference between people at the different stages of belief or disbelief.  I do not think that people at any given stage are better than any other, no more than adults are better people than teenagers, or teenagers better people than young children.  They all simply have different ways of viewing and interpreting the world and their experiences within it.  I do contend, however, that just as adults tend to be better educated, better adjusted, and to possess greater wisdom for their length of experience, those who have progressed to the “third phase” are also wiser and better adjusted.  They are more capable of higher order thinking, more rational, more objective, and more established and comfortable within their identities.

They are independent enough to think for themselves, to make their own choices, and wise enough to look deeper into things rather than taking them at face value.  They are secure enough that they no longer need to prove themselves against the standards or norms of another.  They are grounded enough to no longer need to fly to the attack on others’ beliefs, or the defense of their own.

In short, they have grown up.

Civil Unions For Everyone
http://godheval.net/civil-unions-for-everyone/

However, I think there is something important to consider here. Many of us “straights” take marriage for granted. Some – if not most – social liberals do not put much importance into “traditional values” such as marriage, meaning that we suppose, by virtue of our own wills, we can enter into a commitment without the church or the law dictating the rules of that agreement. We would cite the ridiculously high divorce rate as proof that marriage is a no more reliable form of commitment than a stated vow.

In fact, not too long ago, I trivialized the issue of gays’ right to marry, not because I would deny them anything, but because I also trivialized marriage.  I also dismissed the issue under the pretext that there were “more important” things to talk about.  But in truth, it is not my place to say what should and shouldn’t be important to other people, especially when I do not even have the ability to relate to their experiences.  It was not until very recently that I recognized my privilege as a straight person to even be able to take marriage for granted.

What we must remember in dismissing or downplaying the significance of marriage is that we – as straight people – will presumably always have the option of marrying or not. We can turn our noses up at the institution now, only to change our minds as we get older and – perhaps inevitably – become more conservative in our thinking.

Same-sex couples do not have this luxury. So I think, while we should continue making arguments for universal civil unions as the truly legally-recognizable social contract between partners, we should maintain some sensitivity to the privileges we have as straight people, and not begrudge anyone the desire to form that contract in the way of their choosing – be it “marriage” in some official ceremony, or civil union before a judge.

Welcome to the first installment, featuring none other than Nobel Peace Laureate and President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and God’s earthly emissary (according to the Catholic Faith), his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

President Shimon Peres of Israel

What he said:

“I think the Iranian nation will topple these leaders – leaders that do not serve the people. In the end, people will understand this.”

and:

“To our dismay, our diplomatic relations are at a low point flowing from the desires leading the current leaders of your land to act in every way possible against the state of Israel and its people, but I am confident that the day we are hoping for is not far, when the good neighborly relations and the cooperation will flourish in all fields for the welfare of our nations and for the betterment of our common future.”

Why he should shut up:

Today President Obama released a video calling for a new relationship between the United States and Iran, a symbolic gesture given that it came on Nowruz, the start of the Iranian new year.  Obama, as usual, was savvy and tactical in giving his speech, even going as far as to refer to Iran by its official name – the Islamic Republic of Iran, something which shows recognition of its current leadership.  It is under this current leadership – following in the wake of the revolution of 1979 – under which Iran-U.S. relations deteriorated, beginning with the hostage crisis that same year, and perhaps culminating in George W. Bush naming Iran a member of the “Axis of Evil”.  Obama’s gesture throws such combative rhetoric out the window by accepting and acknowledging the current leadership in a proactive way.

Unfortunately, Peres timed his comments to coincide with those of Obama, as if he were joining in this venture towards peaceful collaboration.  The trouble is that while Obama’s words were friendly and optimistic, those of Peres were critical and condescending.  Not only does he take legitimacy away from the Iranian leadership by suggesting that the people will overthrow them, but he places the blame for poor relations between Iran and Israel solely and squarely on their shoulders.

One would think by listening to Peres that Israel was a country singlemindedly dedicated to Middle East peace, while the Iranian leadership are merely the antagonists standing in the way of that goal.  It would seem to imply that Israel’s own actions played no role in its adversarial relationship with Iran or other Arab nations, which is not only ridiculous but offensive.

Furthermore, Peres seems to be suggesting that at least since 1979 the people of Iran have been misguided in their acceptance of the current leadership, and that is only a matter of time before they become “enlightened” and see things the right way (i.e. the Israeli way), and overthrow those leaders.  Such an implication undermines the overwhelming public support that came behind the 1979 revolution, and the judgment of the Iranian people in selecting their Presidents since then.  Oh, poor misguided Iranians, one day you will see the truth!

At a time when any peace in the Middle East is tenuous, the next phase of war only an impulse away, the country at the center of the tensions might not want to get on the high horse when speaking to those who view it as the antagonist.

So President Peres, with all due respect, please shut the hell up.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ever since taking over the papacy in April 2005, the new Pope has become notorious for making controversial statements.  In October 2006, he quoted a 14th century emperor – who at the time was at war with the Muslim Ottoman Empire – saying:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Within the context of the intensely adversarial relationship between that Christianity and Islam through the proxy of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, the quote’s obvious bias can be understood.  In 2006, without any pretext, Benedict’s use of the quote was irresponsible and offensive.

Most recently, during a trip to Cameroon, he said:

“HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

These comments, which fly in the face of every scientific conclusion with regards to condoms and HIV prevention, place ideology above practicality. Such comments, made by a figure of immense visibility and influence, to the people of a region where millions are infected with HIV/AIDS, are outright dangerous.  They undermine the efforts of health workers and global initiatives to combat the deadly disease.

All for the sake of pushing for abstinence, a position the Pope also says should be taken by homosexuals indefinitely in order to uphold the mandate of the creation, but on which, hypocritically, he was more lenient when it came to the moral weaknesses – i.e. pedophilia – of his fellow clergymen.

As his tour of Africa continued, the Pope offered some additional words of wisdom, this time drawing upon the church’s pro-life ideology:

“Today it is high time to place greater emphasis on this: every human being, every tiny human person, however weak, is created in the image and likeness of God.  [...] Every person must live. Death must not prevail over life. Death will never have the last word.”

Actually, sir, death by its very definition does have the last word.  Now while I recognize that he is invoking the Christian ideal of an afterlife, a person so focused on the afterlife might not be the best one to talk to those who are struggling to survive in this life.  In talking about earthly issues such as abortion and the AIDS epidemic, it might be prudent to limit the discussion to this realm.

And so, your Holiness, with all due respect, just shut the hell up.

Let me be clear that any venomous edge or tone to this post is reserved exclusively for Nadya Suleman, not for any of her fourteen children, who are unwitting participants in a profane human experiment.  Under normal circumstances, the birth of a child or multiple children should be a celebrated occasion, but all too often where they are unexpected or unwarranted, it becomes a conundrum.  Children demand so much time and so many resources that their arrivals should be planned so that they can be properly accommodated.  Because this is often not the case, we have a swelling adoption system, an excess of abortions, and/or children raised in unsatisfactory conditions – something that invariably echoes into the future as they become members of society.

For this very reason, Nadya Suleman is a moral deviant.  She has not only brought one child into the world under unsatisfactory conditions, but she has brought in eight of them – in fact a brood – merely to satisfy the desire to have more children.

Undoubtedly the birth of the Suleman octuplets was to the applause of many pro-life advocates, but her case also highlights exactly why every pregnancy should be preceded by extensive thought and planning, and why the option for a woman to not follow through to birth must always be available. After all, life is more than a heartbeat and air pumping through the lungs; there must be consideration for quality of life as well.

Even before the inadequate financial circumstances into which Suleman’s children were born, there was the high risk involved with bringing octuplets to term in the first place.  History shows that the risk is high, as before Suleman there were seven reported cases of octuplets, each with tragic results.

• September 13 and 16, 2000 – Four boys and four girls born to Mariella Mazzara of Italy. Four died within a month.
• December 8 and 20, 1998 – Six girls and two boys born to Nkem Chukwu of Houston. The smallest died within a week.
• December 5, 1996 – Four boys and two girls born alive to Rosario Clavijo in Spain. Two other fetuses were stillborn.
• September 30 to October 2, 1996 – Six boys and two girls born to Mandy Allwood of England. All died.
• December 20, 1985 – Five boys and three girls born to Sevil Capan of Turkey. All died.
• August 16, 1979 – Five girls and three boys born to Pasqualina Chianese of Italy. Six died within two weeks.
• March 10, 1967 – Four boys and four girls were born to Maria Teresa Lopez de Sepulveda, 21, of Mexico City. All died within 14 hours.

In light of these odds, Nadya Suleman’s actions were so selfish and careless that it can barely be understood, and can truly only be attributed to some sort of psychological malfunction.  I am sure it will come out at some point that Ms. Suleman suffers from some obscure disorder, at which point the nation’s shock and awe will necessarily change into at least disgruntled neutrality and perhaps even sympathy.

But she will get no sympathy from me, because outside of whatever psychosis she suffers from, she has showed the clear cognizance and presence of mind to arrange for the national welfare system to support her bizarre pathology, to conduct multiple interviews, and to have a website constructed to exploit people’s concern for her children in order to solicit donations.  She was supposedly even in talks to be paid up to $2 million for an interview and to star in her own reality television show.  Whatever illness Ms. Suleman may suffer from, it does not seem to have rendered her incompetent, leaving her completely responsible – morally and legally – for her perverse actions.

Although Nadya’s Suleman’s moral compass is clearly off center, the needle also necessarily points to the physician or medical team.  He, she, or they – aware of the situation, allowed her to take fertility drugs despite protests by Nadya’s own mother.  One can scarcely imagine the flight of judgment required for a highly educated medical professional to condone such a thing, which naturally leads to speculation that there may have been a more sinister motivation behind it.  Recent reports indicate that the care Nadya received reached costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Newly grounded from the euphoria of pulling off an octuplet delivery, her medical team is looking expectantly to California’s Medi-Cal system for compensation.

Could the sanctioning of a poor woman taking fertility drugs and subsequently giving birth to eight children really be based on something so trite as personal profit?  Or perhaps for the  acclaim a hospital would receive in being one of the only hospitals in history to safely deliver octuplets?  Either way, there was a major lapse in personal and professional integrity.

For Suleman’s part, she has cashed in – figuratively and literally – on her overnight celebrity, appearing in several interviews to defend her decision.  So this was no momentary failure of judgment, but a conscious and sustained commitment to moral bankruptcy.  At the same time as she makes the audacious claim that she is not taking advantage of taxpayers, she continues to pull in $500 per month in food stamps, which are of course paid for by taxpayers.  While the welfare system is necessarily in place to support the poor and disadvantaged, especially children, it was never intended to support those who would intentionally put themselves in a disadvantaged position.

Any vitriol towards Ms. Suleman has nothing to do with the fact that my taxes are helping to support her deviancy, because her situation has not increased my taxes, and I doubt that even one penny from my income goes directly to her.  And I completely support the welfare system, in spite of the fact that my family managed through poverty without it.  I would even see it expanded, if it ensured that the poor and disadvantaged were provided some relief.

Most people participating in the system – exceptions made for other exploitative deviants like Ms. Suleman – are in genuine need, and it is because of that need that I have no objections to contributing to that system.  Ms. Suleman, in creating her need voluntarily, is taking from those who find themselves at an unexpected disadvantage.  That she would deny that this is the case, and that she would be unrepentant, only compounds upon her disgrace.  That she gave birth to eight children she cannot support is a problem in itself, but that she has no concept or conscience of how she affects others is completely unacceptable.  It only becomes a greater trangression when we consider the state of the U.S. economy, and that the needs of the legitimately disadvantaged have only increased.

Things only get worse when we consider that more than half the world’s population lives in absolute poverty.  In very few places, and perhaps only in the United States, can – or would - a person willfully subject themselves and their children to poverty, and then look expectantly to the rest of the world with an open hand.  In most cases, with poverty comes humility, and reservations about receiving aid from others.  The people of the world’s poorest countries eke out a living as best they can with what little they have, and are invariably grateful – never expectant – for those who assist them.

Nadya Suleman is not only ungrateful – for the privilege of living in a country where her situation is even possible – she is indifferent to the fact that there are those who are suffering around her, and in the world at large.  This becomes clear in how she has embraced her sudden fame, making a public spectacle of herself and her children, even having the audacity to hire a publicist, as if to formally legitimize her celebrity status.

Reports are coming in that Ms. Suleman has gone into hiding, due to a number of people making threats towards her and her children.  She has allegedly checked into a hotel, leaving her publicist to interface with the public.  The welfare system does not cover the fees for a publicist, nor does it cover hotel costs.  Word also has it – and picture evidence affirms – that she had some sort of plastic surgery performed on her face.  Yet she has had to rely welfare system and the donations of strangers for support.  The people who have offered or made donations to the Suleman brood almost certainly did it for the sake of her children, and considering her need.  They probably did not – do not – intend to fund her public relations campaign.

It is not only a physical problem, as Nadya Suleman takes from the collective mouth of the poor, and the hand of the generous, but an ideological one, as she strengthens the case of those who criticize the welfare system as one of waste and excess.

It is for these reasons that Nadya Suleman – and the medical professionals who have explicitly endorsed her deviancy – are deserving of any vitriol that comes their way.  Instead of her actions being celebrated in the media, they should be examined by a mental health professional, and on proof of competence, examined in a criminal context.

Whatever the outcome of the situation, however, it is important to separate the Suleman children from the indiscretions of their mother, and proceed in matter that protects and provides for them as new members of society.  Even if it means their mother is deemed unfit – all evidence seems to point to this – and that they need to be placed in another’s care.