I’ve been expecting your email. An attorney from the Christian Coalition wrote to me to tell me that the organization was ‘keeping an eye on my writings,’ with the clear implication that I would be getting more criticism now that for-profit, pro-bigotry campaigns are coming under greater scrutiny.

It would be interesting to have you set out what you pretend is “the premise you propose (in its entirety)”

I expect that you know, but don’t want to accept, that of the several premises in my essay, one of the main ones was that some religious groups are trying to enforce their own narrow bigotries on the whole society, and that this is a pattern which has been repeated through history.

That premise, as you also know, is one which “Craig” chose to completely ignore, while focussing on illogical contortions which my essay did not support in any way.

The fact that you know these things but still chose to write about some fabricated premise you propose suggests that there is some other reason for you to write. Would you care to share with us what that other reason is?

I’m wondering if your question is intended to convey a belief that all of marriage may be reduced to the issue of sexual desire?

Or, are you saying that you see so little difference between humans and animals, and that you think all of society should see no difference, that sexual desire for animals is equivalent to sexual desire between consenting human adults?

Since most of my essay dealt with group dynamics relating to religious beliefs and marriage, but your comment simply ignores all of that, may I understand that you consider all of that of less relevance than the issue of sexual desire?

I understand that there are many people for whom a focus on sexual issues is far more important than the messages of religious founders. So we find Southern Baptist and Mormon male leaders saying that Jesus was simply wrong when he spoke of treating people with decency and understanding, and that he should have focused more on people’s sex lives. These arguments essentially parallel the arguments of Islamic male leaders who reject things Muhammed preached about how women should be treated, and instead focus on blaming women for their own lack of sexual control.

But these seem largely to be the ideas of the ignorant and the fearful. People who need to find excuses to reject things that they don’t understand or are scared of, or who simply need to find an excuse to feel “better” than some “other” class, focus on group identifiers, like color, gender, sexual orientation, or even “handedness” – think what the root of “sinister” is.

Tom