posted
I have been thinking about the role "values" played in this election, and it has me very troubled. I have been increasingly frustrated with fundamentalists and the nature of their victory, especially with regards to gay marriage. I felt despondent; I worried there could be no give between those convinced of God's invectives against homosexuals, and those who would see them have equal rights.
Today, however, I have remembered a few things, and feel that perhaps I can reconcile with those who believe, and perhaps even convince a few minds. For many people, I acknowledge that the prime source of moral authority is the Bible. It occurred to me that the bible is not all equal. The words of Jesus are of course, the most important moral guides the Bible has to offer. Perhaps some exegesis of His words would yield a profound argument for my point of view. One passage in particular came to mind, the parable of the Good Samaritan. For those unfamiliar, I will quote the text of the New Revised Standard Version, Luke 10:25-36:
quote:25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ 27He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ 28And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ 29But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ 30Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” 36Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ 37He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’
A clear and profound interpretation of this story is often overlooked in favor of something absurdly symbolic and obscure. For an example of this, look here. It is also common for the parable to be read too superficially as an appeal for compassion towards strangers. When looked at in historical context, it is much more powerful than that. The real message is one that will always be controversial, and one that will always be ignored by many preachers because it threatens their authority.
The parable is one not just of compassion, but of religious tolerance, and beyond that, a profound suspicion of religious dogma. There are several details that often are overlooked as they are not as shocking to us as they would have been to the lawyer. The lawyer would obviously be familiar with the laws of the Pharisees. As such, the impact of the story would be much more profound, as it would shock to the core the whole body of law which the priestly class had built. In the story, the holy man is not the priest or the Levite, but the reviled heretic, the Samaritan, who cares for the traveler. This is because the priest or Levite would have to violate temple law and defile himself if he was to help the traveler. The Samaritan, however, acts not out of strict adherence to religious law, but out of compassion. This, Jesus makes clear, is the true nature of piety. Jesus dares to reveal the conflict that can arise between religious orthodoxy and concern for the suffering of others.
Jesus clearly condemns those who would place dogma before helping those in need. He praises as holy and worthy of eternal life those who are heretics, but in their heart hold compassion and concern for everyone, even those whom they consider the deepest of heretics. Yet this appeal for compassion is ignored every day by committed Christians who cannot see past their dogma and their religious intolerance to the true core of the teachings of Jesus. This core teaching of the Good Samaritan is understandably threatening because it is the direct words of Jesus contradicting their claims that the church, faith and orthodoxy comprise the sole path to paradise.
What seems clear to me that if Jesus is witnessing these recent events, He is not celebrating the victory of these “moral values,” but weeping over the victory of the Pharisees.
In the context of all of the gospel, and all of Christ's actions, the idea of Jesus as the heretic kind of . . . well, dwindles. Jesus loved the Mosaic law, and obeyed it and defended it when people accused him of breaking the law. Moreover, in the same way that he did not accept the hypocrisy of some of the pharisees, he did not accept the lifestyles of the sinners.
We do not find him telling the whores and adulteresses to go on about their bizness-- but to go and sin no more. He provided healing and comfort for the sinner and the sick, but then gave them an expectation of advancing their morality.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he (the wounded man) was and when he saw him he had compassion.
The word translated by ‘to have compassion’ is one of the most important in the New Testament. It means to be touched in the centre of one’s being, in one’s very bowels. It is the shock of the awareness of another.
An experiment was carried out in New York. A group of seminarians were asked to prepare a homily on the parable of the Good Samaritan, as part of learning how to preach. They prepared their texts in one building and then had to walk down the street to a studio, where it was recorded on video. An actor was dressed up as a wounded man lying on the pavement covered with blood, begging for help. 80% of them walked passed him and did not even see him. They studied the parable and even composed beautiful words about it, but they could walk by the wounded man and ignore him. How can we open ourselves to the other?
I think Jesus, being the son of God - or one with God, depending on your particular brand of dogma - had authority to tell others to go and sin no more. He also had compassion, wisdom, understanding, forgiveness, and lots of other attributes - most of which may be beyond us mere mortals. He was real clear with the "righteous" that just because they followed the letter of the law, they were not guaranteed a place in the happy hereafter.
I could be misinterpreting, but I think the point is that we, as neighbors to one another, are to care for one another. We are to remember that they too are children of God - even if they don't.
posted
The first link doesn't work for me, Chaeron.
I think you're right in that the primary message of this parable is one of compassion first, other considerations (if they matter at all), second.
But I daresay you're coloring your analysis with your own agenda, as well.
quote:The parable is one not just of compassion, but of religious tolerance, and beyond that, a profound suspicion of religious dogma.
This is because the priest or Levite would have to violate temple law and defile himself if he was to help the traveler. The Samaritan, however, acts not out of strict adherence to religious law, but out of compassion.
I think the message is one of suspicion of wrong religious dogma. After all, Jesus taught and embodied a great deal of dogma, didn't he? I know 'dogma' has negative connotations, but by the definition of the word, it is true Jesus taught much dogma. (I would use a different word myself, but I'm speaking more in the abstract)
quote:Yet this appeal for compassion is ignored every day by committed Christians who cannot see past their dogma and their religious intolerance to the true core of the teachings of Jesus.
You're right, the appeal for compassion (indeed, not an appeal, but for Christians a commandment) is ignored by Christians the world over. Sometimes it's just because we're human and prone to error, other times it such pitilessness stems from genuine prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, or all of the above.
Just as human beings the world over and throughout history are very often hypocritical and ignorant, so too are Christians.
I am guessing-I may be wrong, but I suspect not-that your primary issue of 'moral values' is homosexual marriage. Truthfully, beyond commanding compassion, the Parable of the Good Samaritan has little if any application to endorsing homosexual marriage or civil union (which I do).
In my opinion (obviously), the Parable didn't teach that compassion trumps every other religious rule. That wasn't the lesson. The lesson was that the priest and Levite had set up a large number of rules by which they did not in fact obey God. They set up restrictions on which human beings are in fact people, to whom God's rules governing inter-human conduct should apply.
Obviously God wants no such thing. One of the primary messages of Christianity is that we're all God's Children (or creations, or your own particular faith's term). The Levite and the priest had utterly disregarded that rule (to be fair, so had nearly everyone on Earth at that time, and a great many still do today.)
The 'God of life' is not seen when those on the edge become the center. God (I believe) is seen when those on the edge are treated with an equal measure of compassion, dignity, and simple humanity as are those on the center. When people are not treated on the basis of their skin tone (or the preference of their sexual character, or the nature of their political beliefs, or the style of their religious worship), but treated in a Christian fashion regardless of any of those considerations.
When a fundamentalist Christian helps a black, homosexual, communist Muslim just as quickly-and without mental sweat spent tsking them-as they would their next door neighbor who comes on hard times.
That's where God is found, in the heart of someone (especially the fundamentalist Christan, or radical liberal, or neo-con, or moderate) who sees not the black, homosexual, etc., lying beaten on the ground, but simply another human being who is hurting and needs help, and gives it without hope of recognition or reward.
Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and apathetics, and agnostics) who are not prepared to legalize homosexual marriage do not fall into the same category as the priest or the Levite, Chaeron. They have not been put to that test. I'm unhappy to admit that there are many Christians who would fail such a test, and indeed fail it in their hearts every day without actually happening upon the literal scene.
The message of the Parable (I believe) is not that one should legally endorse sinful activity (which is what many Christians believe homosexual marriage would mean), but rather to give our fellow human beings the help they need when they need it, regardless of how sinful they are or are not. The Parable's challenge was much more cut-and-dried than the question of whether one should permit and vote for anything in favor of compassion.
Please bear in mind, too, that this post is by someone who is deeply disgusted and much depressed by the attitude of Americans in general (Democrat, as well as Republican) towards homosexuals...and by many Christians in particular. It is a distressing reminder that we're still human.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across this sermon by Rev. Dr. Kathlyn James and it reminded me of this thread.
quote:Jesus spent his whole life going to the poor, the marginalized, the persons who were called unclean by their society, and demonstrating that God's love included them. He treated them with compassion. His own harshest words were for the Pharisees who believed that they were righteous in God's eyes, that others were not, and that God's judgments and opinions were identical to their own.
Which brings me to the question of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. There is not time, this morning, to take up that question in depth -- we will have plenty of time for that later, in ongoing Bible studies and discussion. But let me say a few things here. The world "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in the Bible -- that words was not invented in any language, until the 1890s, when for the first time the awareness developed that there are people with a constitutional orientation toward their own sex.
In the whole Bible, there are only seven brief passages that deal with homosexual behavior. The first is the story of Sodom and Gomorra, which I preached on last fall, which is actually irrelevant to the issue. The attempted gang rape in Sodom has nothing to say about whether or not genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same gender is legitimate.
Neither does the passage in Deuteronomy 23, which refers to Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship. Passages in I Corinthians and I Timothy refer to male prostitution. Two often-quoted passages prohibiting male homosexual behavior are found in the book of Leviticus. Leviticus also stipulates that any man who touches a woman during her menstrual period is to be stoned to death, that adulterers are to be executed, that interracial marriage is sinful, that two types of cloth are not to be worn together, and certain foods must never be eaten.
I know of no Christians, no matter how fundamentalist, who believe that Christians are bound to obey all of the Levitical laws. Instead we are driven to ask deeper questions about how to rightly interpret Scripture, how to separate the Word of God from cultural norms and prejudices -- that is, how to separate the Message from the envelope in which it comes.
The final Biblical text that deals with homosexual behavior is found in Paul's letter to the Romans, in which he unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior. The background for his understanding was the common Roman practice of older males 'keeping' young boys for sexual exploitation, which he was right to condemn.
But even if this were not the case, even if Paul knew about and condemned all forms of homosexual behavior, even the most loving, what then? Paul also told women not to teach, not to cut their hair, not to speak in church. Do we follow his teaching? He told slaves to obey their masters not once, but five times -- are we prepared to say today, as Southern slave owners argued 150 years ago, that slavery is God's will?
The fact is, I am not a disciple of Paul. I am an admirer of Paul, but a disciple of Jesus Christ. Paul himself says that we should not follow him, but Christ alone. So I come back, again to the life and teaching of Jesus as the center of my faith. In that light all other biblical teaching must be critiqued. There are seven passages about homosexual behavior in the Bible, all of which are debatable as to their meaning for us today. There are thousands of references in the Bible that call us, as Jesus commands, to love our neighbor, to work for peace and reconciliation among all people, and to leave judgment to God.
posted
Vwiggin, while I absolutely love that sermon you posted, this part had me chuckling:
quote:The world "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in the Bible -- that words was not invented in any language, until the 1890s, when for the first time the awareness developed that there are people with a constitutional orientation toward their own sex.
I'm pretty sure that people were aware before the 1890's that some humans prefer the company of their own sex.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, maybe Rev. James' reference to "constitutional orientation" was a muddled way of saying "natural biological disposition."
quote: The idea that homosexuality is biologically determined is not new. In fact, it has appeared in multiple forms across the centuries.
In the past, many had speculated that homosexuals were different physiologically, but specific medical discourse grounding homosexual attraction in biology did not arise until the late nineteenth century. The idea of a third sex, or "psychic hermaphrodite," was spurred by the discovery of the ambi-gendered fetus that differentiates its sex during normal development.
Thus, the first writings suggesting that homosexuality was congenital, innate, and ineradicable were published in 1864, and Karoly Maria Benkert coined the word "homosexual." This was a radical development challenging old belief systems.
Instead of classifying actions, it proposed to classify individuals. No longer could buggery be considered just a criminal act; homosexuals were a class of people distinct from the rest of the population whose actions were the result of their natural biological makeup. While some homosexuals hoped that grounding themselves in biology and medicalizing their condition would end their legal persecution, it did not. In spite of efforts by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and others to justify their resistance to change, gain sympathy, and seek legal immunity, negative conclusions about biological causes quickly abased them.
posted
What I left unsaid, which I thought would be apparent, is the similarity between the laws which prevented the priest and Levite from helping the traveller and the current beliefs many hold about the ritual uncleanliness of homosexuals.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sinfulness, what's the difference. I'm being figurative here. Also, the strongest and clearest admonishment of homosexuality comes from the same body of law which the preist and Levite obey when they refuse to help the traveller.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's quite a big difference. 'Unclean' is something that not only the faithful shouldn't touch or involve themselves with, but doing so actually stains them somehow.
'Sinfullness', Chaeron, is obviously a very different issue. All human beings are hopelessly (almost) stained by sin.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chaeron, I think you're being deliberately inflammatory and disrespectful. That bit about clergy "hiding" this stuff to retain their power was off the mark, certainly. But to talk about "ritual uncleanliness" in the context of what modern Christian teaching is about just makes it seem like you're less interested in dialog and more interested in showing people that you've read a couple of texts.
Really, the links you gave originally were interesting, but I'd heard all of that stuff in a church from an actual preacher. More than one, in fact.
I don't know who this is all aimed at, but I sincerely doubt that people in Christianity are ignorant of the subtleties of the parables of Jesus. Maybe some are, but the vast majority of Christians I know are intensely interested and their clergy are successful by feeding that curiosity and thirst for knowledge about the scriptures and the times in which Jesus lived.
Such things enrich our understanding. They don't refute or undermine the surface-level understanding.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what way does being Gay qualify as a the same as being a half dead robbed and beaten man laying in the middle of the road?
If I saw such a man I would certainly help. I would treat blood as Haz-Mat now because the man might be infected with AIDS but I would offer assistence with what skill I posess and call for medical evac.
The Marriage thing is a change they want because they want the goodies attached to it. Not care they need to preserve their lives. Sheesh...
posted
I never said anything about burying such an interpretation, but rather, rejecting it because it contradicts other beliefs, ones in which they have placed the whole of their faith. I'm not saying these (hypothetical) people are deliberately perverting the teachings of Christ, but rather blinkered to things which perhaps put Christian charity and compassion in the broadest and most important sense. I'm sorry for not making that clearer. I never meant to be inflamatory. I merely wished to make the case that in the broader sense Jesus placed universal and non-judgemental concern for others as paramount, above the strictures of religious law and dogma. I am not saying that most, or even many Christians are blind to this, but that perhaps in their fervor to protect "traditional marriage" they have forgotten this message.
Thank you for your criticism Bob, I see now that I didn't make my intentions clear enough, and what I wrote could easily be read as disrespectful.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
what percent of the people are gay? Really, 1%, maybe less I do not know. If 5 % of people wanted to change the definition of blue to mean green they would just be laughed at.
quote: Yeah, how dare they want to be able to visit each other in the hospital, or take care of their partner's children
Where did these chidren come from? What % of Gays have children? Why can't they visit the hospital, anybody can visit you in the hospital, just go.
I cannot help but think this is a tempest in a tea cup.
posted
Question - and it's a serious one, not one asked just to be argumentative or further debate.
Dag,
quote:Yeah, how dare they want to be able to visit each other in the hospital, or take care of their partner's children.
If you gave your partner legal power of attorney over medical situations and left a will outlining your wishes regarding your children - would that not accomplish that purpose?
In my experience - it does - my mother in law had power of attorney, limited to medical situations only, granted to my sister-in-law. She was always allowed to be present at doctor's appointments, in the hospital, etc. All she had to do was show them the paperwork that she was the person who could make medical decisions.
Edit: Argh! stupid code.
[ November 07, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right up until the point when a family member challenges it. I don't think it would offer the same degree of protection. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but equal protection under the law is mentioned somewhere in some important document I'm sure.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: what percent of the people are gay? Really, 1%, maybe less I do not know. If 5 % of people wanted to change the definition of blue to mean green they would just be laughed at.
Hasn't this stupid metaphor already been debunked in another thread somewhere? Its hard to keep track with all the stupid metaphors flying around these days.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends... Two people could be together for about 15 years. Two men maybe. One was could have been previously married and hasn't seen his parents in ages. Yet his parents who are strongly right winged might have more power over him and his affairs than his partner. It happens all the time and it's not unreasonable to allow people these rights. Bean counter, it's more like 10% but I suspect it's a heck of a lot more...
I think I may be a Christian though I don't belong to a specific denomination and nor do I want to be.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, studies now show that the estimated 10%, which came mostly from the infamous Kinsey study, is actually high. Actual numbers are probably somewhere around 2-3%.
In the 2000 census, the first time one could identify a household as domestic partners of the same sex living together, less than 1% of households were identified as gay couples living together.
The NHSLS study, a well regarded scientific study, found that 2.1% of the population identified themselves as gay.
More info can be found in the following demographic study:
posted
But, if the gay population represents 2-3% then why does so much of America feel threatened? And did they also factor in Bisexuals and trans folk as well? Also people who are somewhat in between all of that?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being a professional statistician - I can't answer those questions. I do know that there are more than just one study that backs up the 2-3% range.
Here's some more:
1. Overall, certainly less than 4%, probably around 2-3% M, 2% F are homosexual or bisexual
2. The best studies include
a. USA:
Bell/Weinberg 1970 – < 2% total M and F ratings of siblings
Cameron/Ross 1975-78 – 3.1% M, 3.9% F
FRI 1983 – 5.4% M, 3.6% F 4,340 respondents
Trocki 1988-89 – 3% M, 2% F
NCHS 1988-91 – ² 3.5% M over 50,000 respondents
Catania/NABS 1992 – 2% M, 2% F *4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents*
Billy/Battelle 1993 – ³ 1.1% M
b. Denmark
Schmidt 1987 – 0.6% M
c. Canada
MacDonald 1988 – 2% total M and F > 5,500 college student respondents
3. Median of studies listed above: 2% M, 2% F
Upper Quartile: 3.3% M, 3.7% F
Sorry - dont' have a link for that, it was saved on my hard-drive, and the link I saved was broken.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle and Syn, what do these numbers mean? I fail to see the relevance of this at all.
Belle, I am curious to hear what you have to say about my ideas in this thread. I am by no means experienced when it comes to interpreting scripture, so input from someone such as you would be most appreciated.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Is it fair that a committed couple should HAVE to file paperwork and pay legal fees in order to have the same rights as other committed couples have, just because couple A happens to be gay or lesbian? If they were allowed to be married, as they wish, they would have those legal rights automatically and without being questioned first.
2. If 1% of us are systematically discriminated against, then our entire system of government is a failure. Okay, it's hyperbole, but that's how I feel. If some of us are not free, then all of us are not free. If some of us are treated unfairly, then the entire system is unfair.
This is a far bigger issue than whether or not homosexuality is biologically or socially determined, or whether this or that group represents a sizable portion of the population. It's about whether or not America lives up to its ideals. And frankly, the situation now is about as un-American as I can imagine in our modern times.
I truly do not understand the thinking of Americans who insist on leaving barriers in place. They are defending something that appears not to need defending and turning a blind eye to the unfairness and injustice.
Equal means equal. Nothing less will do.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you gave your partner legal power of attorney over medical situations and left a will outlining your wishes regarding your children - would that not accomplish that purpose?
In my experience - it does - my mother in law had power of attorney, limited to medical situations only, granted to my sister-in-law. She was always allowed to be present at doctor's appointments, in the hospital, etc. All she had to do was show them the paperwork that she was the person who could make medical decisions.
Belle, it's true that having a properly filled out power of attorney will likely get you in the door. But, as has been mentioned, you don't know if they're valid until you try to use them. Maybe the hospital will honor it. Maybe the family won't challenge it. There's no way to take one to a judge and get him to say, "This is a valid power of attorney." Also, the rules differ significantly state to state, and some have contradictory rules, requiring separate execution for each state.
Marriage is different - it's presumed valid. Also, there's a large constituency that fights to protect these rights for married couples. If the rights are made equal (and no one yet has given me a reason why they shouldn't be), then gay couples gain the benefit of belonging to that constituency.
Finally, take a look at the list on page 5 of "I am not ok with this." Only about half those can be taken care of with legal documents such as a power of attorney. Even some of those are easily challengable. And each one requires a separate document, some even a separate document for each state. The expense and, worse, the uncertainty of whether they'll be enforced and how, is a significant burden.
posted
If those who are gay/lesbian represent the 2-3% discussed then they are going to have their work cut out for them. I guess they will have to choose to either have local power now by concentrating their vote, which seems to give them a false view of the national political climate and a sense of entitlement, or they can spread out and show people what great neighbors and friends they are!
Silly?
It used to be on the books in Missouri that it was legal to kill a Mormon. Nobody complains about the goodness of the LDS families now, at most they are baffled that what looks like religion based on gullibility produces the finest expression of Christian values around. If anything the Mormon's shame other churches with piety and good values. Nobody doubts their validity anymore.
I guess that might be a model to follow, show people that the one private aspect does not alter public value. Of course one could say that is advocating going back into the closet, but why do the gays seem to jump out of the closet in a pink feather boa and stiletto heels?
I mean really, these are men, often well educated and potentially very powerful from a financial and historical standpoint, physically presentable and well groomed, often meticulous in appearance and quite effective at their jobs. Without children they enjoy DINK financial status so they can garner significant material wealth and savings in short order compared to a couple with one part time one full time income and kids to raise. If that is not the formula to start a successful movement to acceptance and influence in society I do not know what is.
quote:It used to be on the books in Missouri that it was legal to kill a Mormon. Nobody complains about the goodness of the LDS families now, at most they are baffled that what looks like religion based on gullibility produces the finest expression of Christian values around. If anything the Mormon's shame other churches with piety and good values. Nobody doubts their validity anymore.
So was it OK for Missouri to have that law on the books before the LDS had "proved" themselves worthy of the protection of the law? No.
A central tenet of this country, one for which a lot of blood was shed, is that people in and of themselves are worthy of access to the full range of civil rights and responsibilities.
quote:If that is not the formula to start a successful movement to acceptance and influence in society I do not know what is.
What exactly do homosexual people have to do to prove that they are worthy of the extensive list of rights listed in the "This is not OK" thread? I'm sure if you could just give them a list, they'd get started on it right away.
posted
The same way you boil a frog or raise income taxes. Push too fast and you will get stopped by the people you are pushing, they are many and you are few.
posted
So, just to be clear, you are saying that people need to prove themselves worthy in order to receive civil rights?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess that might be a model to follow, show people that the one private aspect does not alter public value. Of course one could say that is advocating going back into the closet, but why do the gays seem to jump out of the closet in a pink feather boa and stiletto heels?
Why is it on them to prove that their homosexuality doesn't alter their value and not on you to prove that it does?
quote: The same way you boil a frog or raise income taxes. Push too fast and you will get stopped by the people you are pushing, they are many and you are few.
BC
What? What are you responding to?
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the irony of most religious fundamentalism, both Christian and Muslim, is that the 'fundamentals' they are so bent on protecting are typically ideas that were never really fundamental in the first place. If you read the Bible, it is pretty clear that the 'values' referred to in this election are not its principal concern. You might be able to find a few passages that could support given views on certain 'values' but it is almost absurd to place so much importance on something only mentioned in a sentence or two of a body of writing as long as the Bible.
I think the real reason people care about these 'values' is because of their families - people don't want their children exposed to what they consider weirdness. They want their children to grow up holding the same principles (and inevitably the same biases) as they did. And to justify doing so, they alter their own religion - putting their own values into the mouth of Jesus, or Mohammed, or whoever it might be.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we should go slowly. Because the lives of currently oppressed people matter less than the comfort level of people in general.
Great idea. That's a wonderful model for a country like ours:
Equal protection under the law, just as soon as the majority of us are comfortable with it.
No thanks. I'd rather get it done more quickly and let you (and others) learn to be comfortable after the fact. Like the civil rights movement. People generally get over their mistaken attitudes once they see that their fears weren't justified.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was telling you how you could be successful, in a general way. I have no vested interest in the matter one way or another. So I have no concern if you want to do it your way and keep getting slapped down.
"It is never strategically sound to meet people head on..."
quote: I was telling you how you could be successful, in a general way. I have no vested interest in the matter one way or another. So I have no concern if you want to do it your way and keep getting slapped down.
You know, BC, you're a real ignorant, arrogant prick.
And I mean that in the kindest possible way.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus clearly condemns those who would place dogma before helping those in need. He praises as holy and worthy of eternal life those who are heretics, but in their heart hold compassion and concern for everyone, even those whom they consider the deepest of heretics.
We agree here. Goats go on the left, sheep on the right.
quote:This core teaching of the Good Samaritan is understandably threatening because it is the direct words of Jesus contradicting their claims that the church, faith and orthodoxy comprise the sole path to paradise.
Part of the orthodoxy and faith of Christians is mercy for one's enemies, and healing for the sinner. The Church (not speaking solely for my Church, but for Christian churches in general) was established to facilitate this effort. Healing is accomplished by preaching the gosepl of Christ, which brings people to faith in him, repentence, and forgiveness. Repentence and forgiveness lead to a better understanding of the Gospel, and the necessity to continue in obedience.
Regardless of which of God's commandments a person has broken, Christians are required to forgive. Hatred is not a part of the gospel of peace.
Christ's gospel heals the spiritually sick, and those that adhere to it give support and caring to the sinner-- but neither gives license to disobey God's commandments. There is nothing in the parable of the good Samaritan that condones the Samaritan's heresy, or that denigrates the law of the Jews.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am for keeping the definition of marriage safe from reinterpretation without a mandate from the will of the people. If it ain't broke do not fix it, I like marriage just fine.
If that puts me, one who does not care one way or another about the gay rights issue into the against camp, then it should demonstrate to you why attacking peoples institutions and values head on is not going to work.
TO SHAN:
no, and yes, even my mother thinks I am arrogant, but if you think I am ignorant, well I am sorry about your myopia.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
