Marriage used to be a completely private arrangement between families, with varying degrees of ceremony but virtually nothing like what we think of today; most of the time couples merely set up housekeeping. (GASP!!) Yet these people rant and rave about marriage being an “institution ordained by God” and blah blah blah quack quack quack.

If there is one thing I really cannot stand it is religious dishonesty.

I don’t know about Friday prayers for Muslims – I’m woefully ignorant of much of the Muslim faith. So I really can’t answer that.

As for the agreement that religious beliefs are not required to be supported by empirical evidence, I think that’s a given. In fact, that might be a unique characteristic of religion.

I’d even go further. While some religious beliefs (the existence of any form of higher power, for example) are outside our ability to apply empirical testing, some beliefs fly in the face of even the most basic of observations.

To me, that just isn’t relevant. That’s just an exercise in “I’m right”, “No, I’m right.”

Richard, I want to say something here and I don’t know how to do so without being offensive. I know that you are capable of not just lashing back without thinking (some folks lack this ability – you have it) so I hope you will listen and an least consider this. You don’t have to agree, but at least hear me, okay?

We all have beliefs. We all have opinions. We all think that our opinions are right – otherwise they wouldn’t be our opinions. Further we all believe that our evidence, that which we trust, that which instructs our thinking is the correct source. And I’m not talking just about religion, but about politics, philosophy, sports teams, ice cream flavors, and everything that you can have an opinion about.

But we must all of us strive to avoid letting our confidence in the rightness of our position cause us to disregard the opinions of others out of hand or (and this is the biggie) to cause us to see those who disagree with us as inferior by definition and thus deserving of discourtesy, mockery, incivility, and inhumanity.

This confidence-based contempt is, in my opinion, perhaps best illustrated by conservative Christian response to homosexuality during the latter half of the 20th Century. And if we look closely, we can see how it happened.

I’ve heard people mock these conservatives as ignorant and superstitious and basing their views out of hate and a bigoted book of lies from an ancient blood-cult. And while that is convenient if all we want to do is express contempt, it is far from reality.

Yes, the opposition to homosexuality was based in religious teaching. But it didn’t stop there.

Conservatives were confirmed in their beliefs by the vast majority of history’s cultural response from almost all parts of the planet. The biological reproductive process confirmed that they were right. And what they knew of the natural world loudly agreed. Their gut-based discomfort illustrated that even on the most instinctual level, surely everyone must know this without having to be told. And in some places there was universal agreement: the clergy, the papers, the politicians, the legal system, the little old ladies.

And, truth be told, what they knew of us offered no rebuttal. In the 60′s the pictures of men hiding their faces while arrest in the park said we were shame-filled furtive creatures – which wasn’t that far off from how we felt about ourselves. The gay writer of Boys in the Band was trying to play up sympathy and the self-contempt that he put in the mouths of his characters was an honest portrayal of the time. Now it’s painful to watch.

In the 70′s we published literature that not only gloried promiscuity but mocked any attempt to conform to social norms of decency (which surely was, in their view, harmful to society). In the 80′s AIDS showed up to say that God (or nature) wasn’t having it. And our righteous anger, which was deserved, often became personalized. We hated conservatives as much as we hated their teachings, sometimes more, which only confirmed that we were enemies of God, society, and all that is good.

Surely if anyone had good reason to be confident of their opinion, it was social conservatives and their condemnation of homosexuality. Theirs was not the wacky new ‘tolerate what all of history has rejected’ view, but backed up by literally everything that they had ever seen, heard, or heard about.

In their confidence, their certain surety, they forgot one thing: you can’t be raging assholes even if you’re right. Not only because you might turn out to be wrong, but because regardless of who is right or wrong, you’re a raging asshole.

And fifty years down the road, they still think that they are right, but they are now beginning to realize that they are assholes. And that can’t feel good.

Okay, and now the uncomfortable part…

Whatever your intentions, when you comment on religion you sometimes do so in a way that leaves me thinking that you are expressing contempt. If something could be interpreted in different ways, you seem to me to be unwilling to consider any but the view most condemning of religious people.

Sometimes it feels like hate.

I apologize if I’ve offended – and I’m not sure how to avoid offense. And I don’t want to play blame – I’m sure that my perspectives flavor my responses on a whole host of issues. I’m sure some here have experience my comments as contempt.

So all I’m asking is that – going forward – you speak of religious people in the way you’d like them to speak about you. And you give their concerns as much attention as you want yours to be given. And be as careful with the terms you use to discuss someone’s religion as you want them to be when discussing your sexuality.

Because at the end of the day you’d probably rather know that you were too generous to someone’s stupid superstitious nonsense than suddenly think, “oh sh!t, I’m an asshole”

I understand that Muslims are typically accommodated for going to Friday prayers, which unlike the routine daily prayers, require going to an Islamic mosque (or “center”) to pray with others as a group. Am I wrong about that?

And, yes, I was assuming that the guy wanting to go to the weekly evolution conference was doing so just out of a sincerely held personal interest.

Can we at least agree that a “sincerely held belief,” in the context of qualifying for workplace accommodation, must NOT be supportable by any empirical evidence?

You are way more intelligent than this. Truly, I’ve read some great stuff from you. So don’t let your disinclination for religion override what you know.

For example, if I request to attend a weekly mid-day conference presenting the latest scientific discoveries in the field of biological evolution, I probably don’t have a prayer. But if my co-worker requests to attend a weekly mid-day religious ritual where they pray for the “truth” of creationism to triumph over evolution, he’s probably a shoo-in.

That is just bizarre. And I think you probably realized that by now.

No, I don’t know of a single employer that would feel obligated (or inclined) to let an employee off for a prayer meeting (unless, of course, they were going themselves). And when the employer said, “no way”, there isn’t a governmental agency or a judge that would think that mandatory attendance at this prayer meeting is a sincerely held belief.

“It’s religious and I wanna go” is not what the law protects. Rather, these protections result from, “my faith requires that I do thus and so and so I need some accommodation to let me to this.” For example, a Muslim must pray at specific times. But that doesn’t mean that his employer must let him pray in the middle of the CEO’s office or over the company loudspeaker. Nor that he be allowed to go across town to pray with others. An employer need not meet any more than the bare requirements (the sincerely held beliefs) and not the whims or wishes.

These type requests are seen as frivolous both by the legal system and by most religious people who know that such abuses reflect negatively on them. (Just like we get annoyed when some gay person cries discrimination when there was none.)

On the other hand, I think it extremely likely that an employer would not only allow but would encourage you to go to any scientific conference that is relevant to your field.

But if you were just going out of personal interest, then they are likely to tell you what the tell the Church Lady and her prayer meeting: do it on your own time.

However, I agree with Priya Lynn and Richard Rush: you either believe or your don’t; the distinction between ‘sincerely held’ religious beliefs and ones ‘general’ religious beliefs is nonexistent.

And herein lies a beautiful expose of the majesty of the American Experiment, that it all lies On Commonsense, as it was once put.

Of course, there are those on both sides now, ripping at the fabric of that, thinking that they might “win” something, if it were to be erased.

But, of course, it is possible to see through the lies of the rationalists and the literalists alike.

It seems that a key requirement for receiving these special rights in the workplace is that a “sincerely held belief” must NOT be supportable by any empirical evidence.

For example, if I request to attend a weekly mid-day conference presenting the latest scientific discoveries in the field of biological evolution, I probably don’t have a prayer. But if my co-worker requests to attend a weekly mid-day religious ritual where they pray for the “truth” of creationism to triumph over evolution, he’s probably a shoo-in.

Will it backfire?

It does seem that “they” have the backing of their big-money donors, so far, from all we can tell from the tea leaves.

Perhaps they are betting that, if it backfires, there won’t be any lasting consequences.

The more I read of Richard Rush, the more I want to marry him.

My husband says the more he reads of my comments, the more he wants to divorce me. So this could work out quite nicely.