A perspective on what is referred to as "gay marriage".

There once were some people who worked at a marina. They would take a sail and a hull and put them together to make a sailboat and sail around the marina and out onto the sea. Sometimes this worked well and sometimes it worked poorly. Sometimes the people cherished the sailboats and sometimes they were reckless. Sometimes a sailboat might have a tear in the sail or perhaps a warp in the keel of the hull in a way that the people could not repair, and to much sorrow, that sailboat could not sail out onto the sea. But the people continued to combine a sail and a hull to make a sailboat.

Then one day it was decided that two sails make a sailboat and that two hulls make a sailboat. What should we make of this?

How can you tell if you are just an ideologue or if you really are advocating something based on reason?

It is very common for humans to think that the actions they are advocating are based on reason and evidence, ie, because they themselves are “intelligent” and “practical”. It is also common for humans to explain that other people argue for some other set of actions just because those people are ideologues. How can you tell if this is the case or are you fooling yourself? I submit a good question is:

 “What are the downsides of the policy I am advocating?” 

If you cannot name any downsides, you are an ideologue. If you name a skimpy list of downsides that you quickly dismiss, then you are mostly an ideologue. Real policies and actions involve trade-offs, and include risks and downsides to real people.

Evangelicals and Roman Catholics

I have written elsewhere that the Xian question is "How can I be saved?", but is it better to think of that as the Protestant Xian question, or even more as the Evangelical question? The reason I ask this is because someone has submitted that the Roman Catholic question would be "How do we love?".

What are the 7 questions for evaluating character?

1) What do you do when no one else is watching?

2) How do you act when everyone is watching?
 
3) What do you do even when you know you will not get the credit?
 
4) How do you treat people who are wrong?
 
5) How do you act when you are successful? (or rich or influential or…)
 
6) How do you act when you are unsuccessful? (or poor or weak or…)
 
7) How do you deal with your own mortality?

Is it accurate to say that humans are very similar to chimpanzees because our DNA differs from that of chimps by only 1.6%?

Is it accurate to say that 9199999999 and 9.99999999 are very similar because only 10% of the characters are different?

(I will leave it to the reader to type longer stings if you want to get two strings with only a 1.6% difference in the characters.)

Why do evangelical Christians in the U.S. tend to associate with free market libertarians so much?

This has been asked elsewhere, and it seemed like such a good question to me that I wanted to include it here.

While I cannot speak for all evangelical Xians, the reason I like free markets is because I like the “free” part. I do not know if this is more prominent among evangelicals, as opposed to other religious groups, but I like freedom and would rather error on the side of too much freedom than too much coercion.

There are ways this blends well w/ Scripture, for Jesus is Lord – which implies that Pharaoh is not. And it seemed important to G-d to demonstrate that.

(I know, G-d has given certain legitimate functions to government, but normal humans being what they are often go beyond the boundaries G-d intended. I think of Matt 23 where some who had legitimate authority were still chastised…)

I am also moved by how freedom glorifies G-d. The Adversary challenged that Job served G-d for the pay. Without freedom, the Adversary could claim that we only serve G-d because we do not have the opportunity or ability to do otherwise.

Eye for an eye

How do you evaluate a religious law? I propose a good question is:

- What would I do if the law had not been given?

Consider, for example, an eye for an eye. If the law were not given, and I were injured would I just forgive and demand nothing in return in either punishment or compensation? Not likely. Would my demand be proportional to the harm done. Not likely either.

I do not need a law to make me demand at a least proportional response. I need one to limit me to a proportional response. I suspect that humans like to pretend that they (as a group) would be peaceful and just if only religion (or G-d) had not told them to be vengeful. I was *going* to be peaceful and just, G-d, but you made me be violent and vengeful. Sounds like Adam...

Questions of a minister in Africa

I know of a man who is from Africa, who ministers there and currently has a university there. A few years ago he gave a talk at a conference where he posed very difficult questions that are worth knowing:

- What do I do when my neighbors become my family's killers?

- What do I do when relatives are suffering with HIV/AIDS?

- When my land and my wealth are taken away?

- What is Freedom? Justice? Mercy? Shame? Guilt?

- Where is God when I suffer?

This man also explained:

"Suffering is part of life, or should I say part of the African ethos. The North taught us how to win, but you did not teach us how to loose. You taught us how to be strong, but you did not teach us how to be weak; you taught us how to smile and laugh, but you did not teach us how to cry and weep; you taught us how to give, but you did not teach us how to receive; you taught us how to live, but you did not teach us how to die. God is teaching us to how to live and how to die. The North can learn from us. It brings out endurance and patience, prayer, faith and worship; a thankful heart and simplicity in life."

How can you tell if a political movement is a form fascism?

Fascism is often used in talking about politics, and often seems to mean little more than "something I do not like". So the question is how can you tell if a political movement is actually fascist? I submit that a good first question would be:

How much does a movement embody the idea of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." (Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)?

This was a slogan of Mussolini and IMO captures an essential aspect of fascism.

(You may ask why I did not take a quote from Hitler. This is because no discussion of anything dealing w/ Hitler can be separated from his hatred and mass murder of Jews, nor should it be. This is why he is the most infamous of fascists. Talking about him would simply turn fascism into a synonym for hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, hatred of Jews is not uniquely fascist, and requires other questions.)

Operations Research and Statistics

As it turns out, I am in the field of Operations Research, and have studied the related field of Statistics. So, the next natural question is - What is the question for these? I submit:

The question for Statistics is: "Given what we know, what should we believe?"

The question for Operations Research is: "Given what we believe what should we do to get what we want?"

What is the first question to ask when gambling?

Who is the pigeon?

(If you do not know, it is you...)

What is the first rule of gambling?

Always be the house...

When is your marriage a success?

How can you tell if it is a success until after it is over? When does a marriage end?

Therefore, my answer is:

When one of you is dead. :)

(Ok, so my wife thought of the answer first, but it is a good answer...)

Why do women like shoes?

I have no idea.

I have a daughter. When she was little, shoes were of no concern. Then one day she became a teen-ager and shoes became important. I do not even know the right question to ask...

How do you know someone is a bigot?

The question I ask for this one is "Is there an egregious double standard?" Specifically, does the person hold the target group up to a higher standard than others so that that group is subject to frequent or constant condemnation that others are not. For example, say a white person is quick to denounce a violent crime when the perpetrator is black but slow to denounce the same crime when the perpetrator is white then there is a double standard. Even more, if that same person is quick to condemn a black person for even a minor offense and slow to condemn a white person for the same, then that person is a bigot. It is true that someone can just be concerned with crime, but the double standard reveals that crime is merely a mechanism to condemn and not the issue itself.

I also apply this same test to someone being anti-Muslim, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-American...

How can you tell if two religions are in fact different religions or variations (or sects) of the same religion?

I submit that a good question for this one is "How well can members of the two religions argue?" This is similar to a test for "Are two languages really just forms of the same language?" where the test is can people speaking the two languages understand each other? Someone speaking "Bostonian" and someone speaking "San Franciscan" can understand each other, so we say they both are speaking English. Someone speaking Japanese and someone speaking French cannot understand each other, so we say Japanese and French are two different languages.

(And then there are ones where this test is of limited use - e.g. Spanish and Portuguese or Mexico City Spanish and Chilean small town Spanish.)

Similarly, Presbyterians and Baptists can argue. A Presbyterian will say "The Bible says such and such" and the Baptist will have to respond with something like "You are not applying the Bible correctly, what that passage means is this and that.” So Presbyterians and Baptists follow two forms of the same religion.
But, if a Presbyterian says "The Bible says such and such" to a Muslim, the Muslim will respond with something like "So what, the Bible is not a reliable." Then when the Muslim says "The Koran says this and such" the Presbyterian can respond with "So what, the Koran is not authoritative". Presbyterians and Muslims follow two different religions.

Again there are some cases where this question is less useful. Presbyterians and Roman Catholics for example. On the one hand both can and will quote the Bible to each other, and neither can say "So what". But Roman Catholics also have Papal Authority and Tradition to which the Presbyterian can say "So what". I do not know enough to know how that works out since I am not sure exactly how Papal Authority and Tradition work in Roman Catholicism.

On the other hand, it does appear that Mormonism is a different religion than either Presbyterianism or Roman Catholicism. The Book of Mormon (and the teachings from Joseph Smith and others) seems to be too important to Mormons. This does not necessarily mean Mormons are bad or that Mormonism is false, just that neither Presbyterianism nor Roman Catholicism are the same religion as Mormonism.

How should you evaluate a religion?

If you are asking in terms of possibly converting, I submit "Is it true?" is a good question to use. ("Is it good?" and "Is it beautiful?" are not bad supporting questions.)

If you are asking in terms of a religion that you will not convert to, but have to live around people that adhere to that religion, then I submit "How does that religion teach its adherents to treat unbelievers?" is a good one. And this does cover those who are unbelievers because they have not chosen to join, unbelievers because they have explicitly rejected, and unbelievers who used to believer and have left.
And not how does it say unbelievers will be treated by G-d, angels, etc. but how *followers* are instructed to treat unbelievers. If I do not believe in a religion, then I do not believe in the supernatural beings that that religion describes or at least I do not believe that those supernatural beings act the way that religion describes. However, no matter what I believe the adherents of a religion *do* exist, so it is the instructions for the adherents that I am concerned with.

Do you have to respect all religions?

This is related to the question "Can a religion be bad?". First, note that the question is how a religion is treated, not a person. A religion is a set of ideas, including ideas such as "Action XYZ is how you should act." I contend that respecting an adherent, a follower, or a member of a religion is different from respecting a religion.

What makes one a liberal?

There are many positions associated w/ Liberal and many associated with illiberal leftists that call themselves Liberal. I would contend that the degree that one is a liberal can be judged by how they treat people that are wrong. IMO that determines whether you have the right to call yourself a Liberal.

And I do not mean people that you "think" are wrong, where you give a gesture to fact that you might actually be the one that is wrong, but those that you *know* are wrong. How you answer "Does error have rights?" or "Do people whose views are in error have rights?" and the related "Should I respect people whose ideas are in error?" is key.

What would I do if I never got the credit for it?

There are a number of questions that people ask themselves as they try to live lives of character. Two common ones are:

- What would Jesus do?

- Would I still do this if other people found out?

I have one that I think is worth considering to add:

- Would I do this if no-one knew it was me - if I never get the credit for it?

This is the opposite of the question that checks to see if you would only do something if you knew you would not get caught or seen. This one asks if you only do something in order to get recognition for it. I have a larger problem with ego than with shame, so this is an appropriate one for me. A wise man once said "There is no limit to what you can do if you do not care who gets the credit."

And I think the example is worth following of "He must increase, but I must decrease" - from one whose task was not to draw praise for himself but to point to someone fundamentally more important.