quote: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.
You're not just against the change without a mandate from the will of the people - you're actively against the change. There's a big difference.
"Well, one outta two ain't bad, sonny boy - straighten up now and play nice - the other kids want to have a meaningful debate, not more acidic mud-slinging."
*picks up coffee mug and starts to hobble out the door to work . . . pauses . . . and adds a final comment . . . *
Luther teachers that grace comes from God through no action of our own - it's freely given - and no amount of preaching, praying, or going to church services will get anyone an ounce more of grace.
quote:There is nothing in the parable of the good Samaritan that condones the Samaritan's heresy, or that denigrates the law of the Jews.
I would argue that you are wrong on both counts. The example Jesus gives of one who does what is necessary to inherit eternal life is the Samaritan. If he doesn't mean to condone his heresy, then why did he describe him as a Samaritan? At the very least, Christ was trying to diminish the importance of that heresy next to the positive values he embodies. Secondly, I don't understand how this story can be interpreted in a way that does not at least in part denigrate the laws of the Jews. After all, it seems clear to me that Jesus is condemning the priest and the Levite for placing orthodoxy before compassion.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, it bears mentioning that Christ was an upgrade. The Samaritan was a heretic by an old set of rules, and Judaism was no longer the true faith. Obviously, then, the Samaritan's heresy was less important than the new rules and commandments Christ brought, which were either totally new to the world, or else previously forgotten.
---------
The most obvious or at least most likely intent of the parable is not to refute orthodoxy or condemn it, but to say that if compassion is not at the front of that orthodoxy, then that orthodoxy is wrong.
But compassion does not equal legalizing homosexual marriages, Chaeron. Compassion does not, for instance, mean letting someone who is upset and aggrieved by the status quo overturn it. You need a better reason; the parable of the Good Samaritan simply does not apply.
And really, the parable of the Good Samaritan is not even necessary to advance the argument-which is a good thing, because using it will not sway those who oppose homosexual marriage or civil unions on religious grounds. Pointing out that granting the precisely same set of legal and financial rights and responsibilities to two people of like gender who agree to enroll as two people of unlike gender who agree to enroll is simply the American way of doing things.
That homosexuals are guilty of no civil or criminal offense (as for religious, well, all Christians are guilty of insurmountable-alone-offense) that they pay taxes, that in the event of a draft, they could be called to serve and die, that they contribute lawfully to society, that they are our friends, relatives, neighbors, and fellow citizens...and that, above all, more than a religious reason should be necessary in America to prohibit an activity.
No such reasons exist for homosexuality or same-sex marriage. Sociological and health reasons are inconclusive or disproven (i.e. it poses no provable or even arguable-on purely rational grounds-for homosexuality to occur or for same-sex marriages to occur), and as for health reasons, they're as laughable and pathetic as Bean Counter.
---
The way in which the parable of the Good Samaritan does apply to Christian interaction with homosexuals is this: a good Christian, a true follower of Christ, should not turn away from anyone in need, homosexual or otherwise. If a homosexual has been afflicted somehow, or is suffering from harm, a good Christian should show them compassion and try to help them.
Actually, this applies to everyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
that our judiciary knows that the letter and the spirit of the Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law. In that case, I believe they will strike down just about any law that is discriminatory given the chance.
What the passage of these laws has done in 11 states is to commit those states to spending money defending a law that is unconstitutional. These votes were simply a vote to waste money in legal fees.
That is my hope.
And my second hope is that the consequent call for a Constitutional Amendment to tie the courts hands will fail to pass by the necessary super-majority of states. In which case, the fight against gay marriage will die a much deserved death.
My fear, is, however, that some of the courts will decide one way and others will decide another way. And we'll end up in another hopeless morass that will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.
Or, worse yet for America's soul, the president will find a way to get an Amendment passed.
If that happens, I suggest that every gay person in America should be given a free pass on taxes, since they are obviously not represented by our government.
I'd like to see that tally as the NEGATIVE side of these repressive efforts.
Of course, there won't be any such "balance" -- it'll just be a repressive piece of legislation that we'll have to live with for a few decades until better people in a future time finally "get it" and undo the harmful law, if not the harm itself.
I would like to see a fund set up by the people who support these laws so that the legal defense of the laws are paid for out of private funds and not state coffers.
Of course, that too will not happen.
So, I get to live through the utter agony of watching my tax dollars go to defend a law I find execrable.
And think of the insult to gay couples who are also paying taxes to defend a law that represses them.
Seems like the obvious lack of fairness would strike at least SOME of the supporters of these laws.
What do you say? Shall we demand companion bills that say "if we are going to put into law the fact that we discriminate against an identifiable subpopulation of Americans, we will, at the same time, let them off the hook for at least a portion of their taxes?
Seems only fair to me.
And those who support the law can pay that missing share.
That's the REAL cost of protecting marriage.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the State Constitutional Amendments should make challenges at the state level trivial. All we have to do is wait for the challenge at the Federal Level, and those will be leveled by Gays, so tell them not to challenge it is you are so worried about the cost. I will back you up!
posted
Rakeesh, this was more or less my point. I extend compassion to also mean avoiding actions which directly harm homosexuals, such as denying them equal rights before the law.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What the passage of these laws has done in 11 states is to commit those states to spending money defending a law that is unconstitutional. These votes were simply a vote to waste money in legal fees.
Actually, not all of them are likely to be struck down. Several of them (I believe the majority, but I might have the numbers switched in my head) simply define marriage without having the civil union ban and possible right to contract infringements. The former are unlikely to be declared unconstitutional, and, frankly, current jurisprudence probably upholds that result.
Of course, it also upholds doing the right thing...
Here's a serious question - if someone proposed an amendment granting civil unions but banning gay marriage, and if that amendment guaranteed exactly equal rights under the law for marriages and civil unions, would you vote for it? I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation.
posted
Chaeron, The opening post was beautiful and right on the money. Thank you. I know I needed that.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers don't mean anything - they're just numbers. Syn posted a number he believed to be correct, I had data that said otherwise, I offered it up so that it could be looked at.
As for your interpretation of scripture, I agree with a lot of what has already been said in this thread by others, and don't want to go back over well trodden ground. I do want to make one thing clear, though.
quote:The example Jesus gives of one who does what is necessary to inherit eternal life is the Samaritan.
No. The Samaritan is not the example of what is necessary to inherit eternal life - he is only the example used to show the man what the meaning of the word neighbor is. Remember that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is only the second greatest commandment. The Samaritan is a wonderful example of how to exhibit compassion and love to one's fellow humans, but it does not mean that compassion and love are the only things necessary for eternal life.
By grace you are saved and not by works, lest any man should boast. All the good works like helping beaten, robbed travellers cannot earn you eternal life - eternal life can't be earned at all - it's a gift of grace.
As for what Jesus was trying to say about the law - I have no problem accepting that Jesus thought some of the laws about ritual uncleanliness were no longer necessary. He healed lepers, he allowed the woman with the issue of blood to touch him, both people were also considered unclean.
But I think a lot of what he was angry with was the way the Pharisees were interpreting the laws, not the laws themselves. I believe he did revere and honor the law, but took issue to the extent the pharisees had introduced legalism.
Look at Luke 13(NIV)
quote:14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." 15The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"
Jesus didn't agree with the absurd extent to which the pharisees had taken the law about honoring the Sabbath. In another passage, he states it's lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and there are numerous examples of him being confronted for healing on the Sabbath, and for his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. He also says the Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath.
Yet, never does Jesus say that the Sabbath should not be honored. It was a matter of degree - the pharisees were over the top in their interpretation, and he set them straight. But he didn't throw out the old law.
Honoring the Sabbath is part of the first greatest commandment - loving God. Remember that all the commandments flow from the two greatest ones. And Jesus, while he had compassion for and loved and healed people, did not ignore or excuse their sin. That's already been pointed out, but I wanted to reiterate. Having compassion for and caring for others doesn't mean you excuse sinful behavior.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of course I am aware of his first commandment; however, I fail to see how loving God necessarily involves blindly obeying dogma and legalism which contravenes the second. This is my main point. Not that dogma is entirely irrelevant, but that when it conflicts with loving one's neighbour as one's self, you should obey this greater commandment.
Also, should we necessarily doubt that the samaritan loves God with all his heart? The way he expresses this love may be different, but are we to assume that because he is a heretic to the Pharisees mean that he does not love God?
quote:By grace you are saved and not by works, lest any man should boast. All the good works like helping beaten, robbed travellers cannot earn you eternal life - eternal life can't be earned at all - it's a gift of grace.
That's where the Protestants differ from Catholics. In the Catholic Church, faith isn't enough, and grace only comes when it's mixed with faith and deeds.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's where evangelicals differ from Catholics, Irami. I don't consider myself a Protestant, but I think you would, and I agree with the Catholics on this point--or at least I'm closer to their position.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there's a beautiful Scripture passage in James 2 that contains an explicit statement on this.
quote: 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I'm sorry, all those who believe that faith alone can justify us, it just isn't true. At least not according to Scripture.
One of most memorable times spent in a church was with a group of Baptists studying James. It was beautiful to see people questioning the "faith alone" doctrine and coming to a deeper understanding. And reaching that with them. I will cherish that moment of personal and group revelation as long as I live.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now, is it such a stretch to paraphrase this:
quote:15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
as meaning in essence this:
quote:15If a brother or sister be suffering injustice, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye satisfied; notwithstanding ye give them not justice; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
quote: 1. An emphasis on the conversion experience. The conversion is also called being 'saved' or the "new birth" or being "born again" after John 3:3 (Evangelicals are sometimes referred to as "born-again Christians" because of this emphasis.) 2. The use of the Bible as the primary source of God's revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority. 3. Encourage evangelism, that is the act of sharing one's beliefs in the gospel with others in order to convince them to convert, either in organized missionary work or through personal evangelism. 4. A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross, especially as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.
This differentiates it from some broader meanings within Christianity and from the narrower meaning used by the press.
posted
Irami, I think the easy way is to say that true faith will inspire works. That is, the presence of works is a statement on the power of one's faith.
posted
Actually, Bob, faith is all that is required.
A man can live a totally depraved life, steeped in sinfulness, and yet be converted on his death bed and have eternal life without any good works ever having been done to attain it. That is what the parable about the 11th hour workers is all about.
Works flow from faith - I interpret that part of James to mean that if you claim to have faith, but do not do good works, then your faith is false. It doesn't mean that good works trump faith.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Dagonee. My main point was that not all Protestants believe in salvation by faith alone--it is not the main distinguishing point between Protestants and Catholics. But your clarification is handy.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Notice that James is saying "not by faith alone" but that it takes "faith with works"
Whereas Paul is saying "not by works" which could be interpreted as "not by works alone."
Paul doesn't say that it doesn't take works, he's saying that works alone don't cut it.
The two go very well together if you agree that they are the opposite sides of the same coin.
Otherwise you end up with warring Apostles and picking and choosing what you'll believe out of the Bible.
For my money, James' statement is the clearer of the two, by the way. Because he addresses faith and faith without works and ties it into the entire history of God's people with concrete examples.
Paul is less determinate and doesn't explain as much what he is talking about in this instance.
So, we have to interpret him.
Let's look a little more into Paul's letter to the Ephesians:
quote:4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
And there we have it -- the whole of Paul's epistle dealing with faith and works, and what does he do? He tells us that we are saved by faith, and that we are created in Jesus to do goo works, and that God has ordained that we should walk in them (the good works).
It all fits together when we decide NOT to take the Bible in too-small chunks.
Notice also that Paul is on a different track here. He moves on to a message of peace. Why would he do that? Was he done talking about works and faith? Or was he tying that into a broader lesson? One about the natural consequences of faith -- the leading of a peaceful life and so on.
He had a message here that he needed to bring home and it wasn't so much about faith and works (which was what James was REALLY getting at), but about the way to live a peaceful life.
At any rate, it all ties together, for me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry to say it, but I couldn't disagree more with your interpretation. The basis of these two statements is that:
Faith without works is dead. Works alone (without faith) is also dead.
Only through God's grace do we have faith, and that faith calls upon us to do good works, just as God commands.
That is the complete summation if one is to reconcile and consider both James and Paul. To me, it is also a much more consistent message with what Jesus taught. It underscores some of the meanings (the deeper text) in parables like the Good Samaritan.
Only with faith and works will we be "justified"
Now, a death-bed conversion is all well and good, but those of us who claim to be faithful during our active lives don't have that escape clause. The point of the 11th hour stuff is that all hope is not lost. It is not a statement about "faith alone" but it is a statement that through God's grace, faith can save you.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and it's also worth noting that both James and Paul are saying that faith and works don't come of us. They're from God's grace. That's what really does it.
And through that grace we get: - faith - good works - justification - righteousness - salvation - mercy
It's sort of a package deal.
Belle, I'm surprised you'd be willing to relegate Jame's statement to such secondary status. It seems to rob it of it's clearest and most literal meaning when you do that. Whereas you take Paul's statement to mean something far beyond what the literal words are saying.
Especially if you read two more sentences further into the text.
I don't deny that the two texts COULD be read the way you propose, but those aren't the only readings and, to my mind, they aren't even the most clearly obvious readings of them.
And since it is possible to reconcile their texts with a message that is also seemingly more consistent with a broader message that explains the 2nd most important commandment, and links it all to the first commandment (who wouldn't love a God that gave us all that stuff through grace?), I think the reading I pointed to (it certainly isn't mine by any stretch) is by far the more consistent one.
Richer, and more in keeping with the rest of the New Testament, as well as the Old.
IMHO, of course.
This is all matter for personal preference.
Unless we're teaching others the wrong thing, of course.
Lots of people disagree with me. Doesn't make me wrong. Of course, you'll counter it doesn't make me right, either - which is cool.
Now, we can argue this but it's rather pointless, I doubt you'll change your mind and I know I won't change mine. Plus, it's not a new argument - the Calvinists and Arminians have been having it for a long time now to just name two. And there is tons of material available both defending and refuting each side, both on the internet and in any library.
It all comes down to what each person chooses to believe, and I personally don't feel like butting heads over it at this moment, I've been doing it for a while in my church, where we have strict covenant theology presbyterians and a bunch of southern baptist background folks trying to come to a consensus on what our doctrinal statement should read.
Part of the growing pains of a church, of course - and it's been very civil, just a few people getting feathers ruffled but no one's left the congregation for it. At any rate, I've been hashing out these issues for weeks now and really would prefer not to do it here any further than I already have.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The only thing I'd hope to convince you of is the possibility of teaching more than your preference to new Christians.
Since I know you evangelize, it would be preferable, I think, to know that your chuch is capable of teaching more than just one meaning of these texts.
Seems like that might solve the disagreement too. Just a suggestion (unwelcome, I'm sure) from a complete outsider.
But it seems to me that if you all, in good conscience, can't agree on ONE direction, maybe there's more than one direction worth pursuing.
Sorry to butt in. I know you must be exhausted and frustrated with this issue given what you've said in that last post.
I hope you all work it out amicably and come to an understanding that all can understand and live with.
I think things like this are silly reasons to break up a church. Good luck!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It all comes down to what each person chooses to believe,
No, it isn't, Belle. It's not at all about what you choose to believe. That's the point. This is one of those scriptures that's not in the least bit concerned with your choice. Bob is a little bit easily on this, but the matter doesn't change. _______________________________________________
How did Christianity become so post-modern? How is it that everything is up to preference? You don't get to choose. You look, you consider, I guess you pray, but you definitely don't get to choose. This isn't a matter of preference.
posted
Oh, don't let me give the wrong impression!
We actually came to the agreement that agreement on election wasn't necessary - we don't require that people accept our doctrine of election before they join the church. We do require church officers to accept it though.
And the reason we're doing this isn't because a split is looming, it's because we've just bought land and are planning expansion, and we're in search of a new pastor and wanted to have our doctrinal statement clear and precise when we gave it to any job prospects.
My church is actually a shining example of how different theological views can still worship together and edify each other as a body of Christ. We have strict five-point Calvinists and we have people who have strong pentecostal leanings sitting next to each other in the pews.
We don't stress out over the details - what matters most is a person's personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Our motto is:
In Essentials: Unity In Non-Essentials: Liberty In All Things: Charity
But, because we were involved in this doctrinal statement series, there was a huge amount of discussion and debate in Bible study classes and at fellowship lunches, etc. I just got burned out on explaining my position a hundred different times.
There are people in my church who feel as you do, and who strongly disagree with the "Covenant bunch" as we are known. But they are still our good friends and valued members of the congregation. We really try to practice what we preach - and don't view unconditional election as an "essential" on which we all must agree.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I'm not sure what you are saying to me exactly.
Do you not think that Bob and I can have divergent beliefs on the relationship of faith and works and still both be Christian? Because I certainly think we can.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is kind of a deal breaker, without deeds, there is a sense in which it's just a party for people to rejoice in Jesus' love for them, in a self-congratulatory self-serving way. If the result is that Jesus did all of the work, and took the responsibility from man's shoulders, giving everyone else a pass to half-do it, or do it when they feel like it, then I don't know. That we get a pass to say, "I'll do good deeds, but only on my terms," sounds real American.
*****
Edit: If faith alone is all it takes to qualify for grace, that's fine.
Here is the situation:
Let's say that I'm about the take the test. I could cheat. If I cheat, and I get caught, it's a small town and I know the teacher, she'll still give me an A because she thinks I'm a peach. (faith alone)
But I could cheat, and get an A, or I could not cheat and get a C, but she may round it to an "A" at the end of the year.(faith alone, redux)
Let's say I take the noble route and don't cheat because I don't want to disappoint the teacher. You'd think that I'd made the moral choice. It feels moral. I could have cheated and I didn't, and I'm going to pay a price for it. But here is the kicker, and this is a subtle one-- so subtle that I think it's what screwed up the Incredibles-- I'm still in control. I still get to do whatever I want because I want to do it. If I want to cheat, I can cheat. If I want to not cheat, I choose not to cheat. There is no duty, no responsibility, there isn't even humility. With the second choice, it seems like there is humility, but it's a queer kind of faux-humility.
The correct answer is, of course, not to cheat, but the reason why is because you shouldn't cheat on tests. That's it. You know that. The teacher knows that. So while you are playing all of these games, you ignore the matter at hand, all in the name of keeping the decision as a function of your want. It's that drive to mastery, in all its guises, that gets us.
*chuckles* I think that's the problem with the Incredibles, but that's for another thread.
posted
Considering this entire conversation about faith vs. faith + works was launched by how to vote on gay marriage, I continue to stand befuddled that I'm in the minority in thinking religion and politics are, in their very nature, a conflict of interest.
posted
In what way, Ralphie? As in they must be seperate. In that case, you'd be in good company at least among the framers of the Constitution.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
....
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
It appears that what Jesus condemns is not the Law, but those that hypocritically give lip service to the law.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I continue to stand befuddled that I'm in the minority in thinking religion and politics are, in their very nature, a conflict of interest.
It's my belief that at their purest center, religion and government have the same goal-- the lasting happiness of mankind.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A question for both liberals and conservatives, but not on faith and works.
Given that the issue of the nature of marriage is being tackled at the state level, what do you think of the choice some gay persons may make to move to other states where the laws and culture may be different?
If they are dissatisfied with the current legislative environment and culture, do they have an obligation to stay and try to change it? Is it unworthy or less than admirable of them to change gears and go to a different environment?
Does it matter whether those individuals indentify very strongly as a citizen of that state (say, a Utahan or Kentuckian), or as a member of the region (say, a Southerner in Louisiana), or whether they have a long history in that state or region?
Does making that choice become less or more admirable if that person identifies more strongly as an American than as a member of a particular state? Or is that irrelevant, with each person carrying an obligation to fight the system from within, wherever they may find themselves?
I'm curious about this for my own reasons, as should be obvious. I'm particularly interested in the opinions on changing states in these circumstances for Bob_Scopatz, Belle, Mabus, Xap/Tres, and littlemissattitude -- but I'll listen with due diligence and a friendly eye to all comers, regardless of position.
Promise.
[ November 09, 2004, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That we get a pass to say, "I'll do good deeds, but only on my terms," sounds real American. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds pretty human to me.
Well, it's definitely post modern. It's from a culture that's built on horse trades, not religion, and now we have horse trades in the guise of religion.
I actually think that the reason we are one of the more successful religious and politically mixed countries in the world is because we've tailored our religion to let us do whatever we want. If we are looking to blame, we can blame our english tradition and King Henry's divorce.
There are some benefits to this, including a nimble, flexible religious/political apparatus. But the result seems to be that a pious life is equated with doing what you want. There have been shifts. We make the bonds to our liking, and change them at our will. And God is here to give you strength and savaltion in choosing your preference.
There are some perks to this. For example, I don't think arranged marriages would fly in America. Because instead of a culture where we see the love that is already there building on that, we fall in and out based on what our tastes. It's a matter of taste.
I'm not saying that we should return to anywhere, because this is who we are, but I am curious as to what sense this makes.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm probably terribly out of line, but I keep seeing parallels between the current divide we have concerning equal rights for homosexuals and the divide we had concerning (first) slavery and then equal rights for all races. I personally have no problem at all with people relocating to regions of the country that are more accepting of their values. However, in my mind, the reality is that to maintain the union, the increasingly disparate views held by the populations of various regions must be reconciled under a common set of laws. My hope is that the statement
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
will win out and that the more "fundamentalist" segments of the population will be more tolerant. The worst case, however, could easily be a threat of secession and another civil war.
posted
Well, Sara, as you probably know I'm pretty attached to my home, and I'm pretty much a believer in you don't let policies drive you from your home. You fight to make things in your home better.
How do you bring about change if all you do is give up and run when things aren't the way you like them? And how do we exist as a country if we separate into "us" states and "them" states?
Granted, if you look at an electoral college map you'll see we almost are at that state anyway - with the urban areas in the blue and the suburban and rural in the red. Do we want to make that worse?
When a state lottery was being considered for Alabama, and people began lobbying for legalising gambling in the state, I fought against it. I'd already seen what that did to my husband's home state of Mississippi. It was defeated, narrowly. Had it won, I wouldn't have moved because I don't approve of gambling and I don't like the idea of raising my children in a place that has been turned into a gambling mecca.
From a Christian perspective, we're called to be salt and light in the world - the city on the hill that can't be hidden. We're not supposed to retreat and cluster together in small groups and ignore the rest of the world. We're supposed to be out there spreading the gospel and influencing the world around us as best as we can.
So, I say no - you don't go. You stay and work toward the goals that matter to you. There are always exceptions, and if my children and I were under pain of death then I would probably move anywhere to protect their lives. For something like government policy, then I don't agree with leaving - because we are a republic, and we have free speech, and the ability to lobby and try to bring about change.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, wouldn't you describe the recent trend of home-schooling children in born-again families as a retreat of a similar nature?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been critical of some people's decisions to home school because of that very thing - because I think they turned to home schooling as a path of least resistance instead of trying to work with the public schools.
I am personally very much in favor of leaving our Christian kids in public schools, but I also support the right of a parent to make that determination for themselves. Homeschooling has much to recommend it, and some downfalls.
It's a highly individual decision - some people pulled their kids out because their child was exceptional in some way and the school couldn't meet their needs properly. I think that's admirable - they are doing what's best for their kids. But if they retreat just to separate themselves - I support their right to do it, but I don't personally agree with the philosophy.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks so much for responding, rubble and Belle (and Tom's query). I'm going to try to distill the answers down -- please let me know if I am misrepresenting you. (The distilling is my attempt to understand the answer, not to put words into your mouth.)
So, in answer to the basic question, "Given that the issue of the nature of marriage is being tackled at the state level, what do you think of the choice some gay persons may make to move to other states where the laws and culture may be different? That is, do you view the decision to leave that state to live in another to be a or dishonorable or disreputable thing to do?
rubble: "I personally have no problem at all with people relocating to regions of the country that are more accepting of their values." But if someone were to move to another state because they did not wish to live in a state under those laws and with that general culture, then they have an obligation to keep trying to address this problem at the more overarching (i.e., federal) level.
That is, just leaving and living in a different state where this is not a problem for you does not fulfil your duties as a (federal) citizen, unless you are continuing to work for change at a broader level. The right thing to do has to do with addressing the problem in general, regardless of where you are located while you are trying to address it.
Belle: "You [shouldn't] let policies drive you from your home. You fight to make things in your home better. You [should] stay and work toward the goals that matter to you. There are always exceptions [at the very extremes of circumstances, such as life and death]... I support their right to do it, but I don't personally agree with the philosophy."
That is, if you do not like it where you are, you shouldn't move to another state. Barring something extreme such as a threat to the life of one's children, you should always stay where you are and work for change. But although I would not be fully approving of that choice, I would not prevent someone from moving.
[ November 09, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oddly enough I also see the merit in Belle's position. To me, though, it is a matter of the degree of discrimination that would force me to leave. I think that everyone has a threshold of pain for this sort of thing, and if that threshold is reached I couldn't hold it against them if they decided to relocate. In the US citizens of the luxury of easy mobility. That isn't the case in other parts of the world where it might not be so easy to "move away" from discrimination, torture, genocide .... Sometimes we forget how good we have it
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rubble, I basically agree with you, except that I think it's valid to believe certain issues should be left to the states, and therefore moving wouldn't require continued effort at the federal level for change.
Fair comment. I guess that is one the reasons for the push for a constitutional amendment on the issue of same-sex marriage. That will (edit: meant to say would) per force make it a federal issue.
posted
It is interesting, isn't it? This particular cycle of circumstances has me thinking about what I believe in, how I define myself, and who I am at a very fundamental level.
I'm glad I didn't misrepresent you, rubble. Always dicey.
A further question for you, rubble?
I think you are identifying addressing problems as a key component of what it is to be a good person. So, if there is a problem that one finds troubling, one should address it, not walk away from it. But it doesn't seem that for you location of one's self is as important as addressing the problem.
I wonder now how you feel about people leaving a state where they didn't come across any fundamental problems. That is, is there anything (in your eyes) dishonorable or disreputable about the mere fact of leaving the place of one's birth, in itself? (Since state and local resources at some level were invested in raising you safely, that is -- physical infrastructure, bureaucracy and legislation resources, and so forth.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd vote for a federal amendment in a heartbeat.
Not the one being proposed now, of course. Preferably one that required equal civil marriage rights, at minimum one that required recognition of other states' civil unions and marriages with full equality between them.
Methinks this isn't what most people advocating a federal solution want, though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course, you'll counter it doesn't make me right, either - which is cool. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But they are still our good friends and valued members of the congregation. We really try to practice what we preach - and don't view unconditional election as an "essential" on which we all must agree.
