For rulers hold no terror for those who do right

A Cranky sermon for a Sunday afternoon

BushCo and the "Religious Right," and the Ultra-Cons would have you believe that they are the ones on the side of good morals and greater understanding (and implementation) of Scripture. I find Romans 13 almost as interesting as Leviticus (the bible gives some pretty detailed household cleaning tips in there).

Romans 13 is more interesting from a purely political perspective as it's all about submission to governing authorities. If you were to believe the verbiage literally: authorities that exist do so by the grace of G-d, rebellion against authority is rebellion against what G-d's instituted, and ruler's are G-d's servants to do you good (unless you're bad) and that everyone should pay the taxes they owe. Based on this, and Romans 13:5 which insists it is necessary to submit to authories not only to avoid punishment but because of conscience. Does anyone else find the subtle humor of irony in this?

I guess, if you want to be technical, the rich who pay a smaller proportion of their overall earnings above a set amount and take advantage of every loophole created for them aren't really avoiding paying their fair share because the loopholes are created by the magnanimous authorities (who usually derive great benefit from the loopholes themselves).

I am confused by the bit about rebellion against authority. Romans 13 clearly states the rulers are in place as established by G-d; it doesn't say anything about the cruel, selfish, schmuck type rules being some sort of exception who've usurped authority without G-d's approval or anything. The entire extablishment of this country's independence from England was the big F-you to King George (that's be George III of Britain, not King George W). Wouldn't this be some sort of collective sin by our very religious Christian forefathers (description according to the theocracy now brigade)? If individuals are not to rebel against their governing authorities, how can other governing authorities (at least those who subscribe to the NT) be involved in the removal of the G-d authorized governing authorities in other countries - does G-d issue a memo or newsletter to all of them to alert the Ruler's Union who's gotten a pink slip?

How do the divinely delegated rulers know which scripture to take literally, which to take as advice and which they're free to ignore? Take at look at the current state of US Bankruptcy laws. Now I take being responsible for personal finances very seriously (maybe a little too seriously). My father went through a bankruptcy when his business failed when I was pretty young, but old enough to understand we were in some deep shit. We lived from hand-to-mouth and it certainly affected decisions my brother and I both made about our college education. On the bright side, my brother and I both have an exceptional work ethic and believe quite strongly in earning things and fiscal responsibility (mind you, if I were as responsible with my own money as I am with my company's, I could afford one of those McMansions close to my office).

I know people who think of credit cards as free money and who have accummulated an inordinate amount of debt through this philosphy; I have friends whose spending habits make me want to cringe, there is one couple in particular I fully expect to have to file for bankruptcy and, despite the fact I love them dearly, they deserve a thrashing for their irresponsibility. I fully support tightening of relgulations covering bankruptcy for irresponsible people like this.

This new bankruptcy overhaul bill, however, which I thought was supposed to actually penalize people like those who've been abusing the system (as it should), has some nasty bits included that I don't think G-d's special ruling Republcan servants are looking to do good for good people of conscience. For example, elderly people who, for the most part, are on fixed incomes with rising costs are not eligible for Federal homestead exemptions to allow them to keep their homes if they file for bankruptcy (the states that offer unlimited homestead exemptions allow those in multimillion dollar mansions to keep them even if selling them for a smaller estate would enable them to pay off their debt immediately). Additionally, amendments to protect those whose bankruptcy filing was due to exhorbinant medical costs, not irresponsible spending, were defeated pretty much down party lines as well. These amendments provided for the maintenance of at least $150,000 of the equity in their home (primary home only) and/or exemption from a new test in the legislation measuring income and assets of bankruptcy applicants (which determines if debts can be discharged) if medical bills exceed 25 percent of the person's income. This is a bit of a double whammy for the geriatric set who are much more likely to incur large medical bills due to underinsurance and significant co-morbidities leading to hospital admissions and/or home nursing care.

The pièce de résistance of the Republican (the "support our troops" party) defeated amendments is Dick Durbin's amendment devised to protect military personnel and their families from facing bankruptcy due to prolonged military deployments that can lead to dire financial circumstances. Said Durbin, of his proposed amendment,

"We have a situation today where many men and women in the military are making extraordinary sacrifices, and it's costing them -- not just in terms of time away from their families but in very real financial terms. It's unfair that they should come home to face this new harsh bankruptcy law."

I guess G-d disagrees.

Tags:bankruptcy;politics;military

Sphere: Related Content

Whose life matters?

For whatever reason, I spent the majority of yesterday morning's inordinately long commute wondering about people in the "Prolife" Movement. Those of us who are Pro-Choice are fully aware of the vast disparities in our own personal views on abortion. As the movement is one of mutual respect of personal views without requiring others to hold the same views and live in accordance to them (choice), there is no conflict or inconsistency in the agenda of the movement. The more I interact with "Prolife" advocates, the less homogeneity I see among them as some are very strict with their views against abortion (abortion outlawed for any reason but ectopic pregnancy), are against hormonal contraception (they consider it an abortifiacient), and they do not approve of the withdrawal of life support; some think life begins at conception and abortion should only be allowed in cases of incest & imminent risk to the mother (but not for fetal defects or rape); some are just against abortion "on demand", but accept use of contraception and withdrawal of life support; and then there are others in between.

Over the past few years, there's been an upsurge in vitriol as the "Prolife" movement has been emboldened by the actions of the Bush Administration and the increased domination/control of the Republican party by the NeoCons and Religious Right. Legislation is continuously being created to intentionally chip away at Roe to the point that there's proposed legislation to allow individual pharmacists to refuse to fill legitimate and legal prescriptions for hormonal contraceptive agents that are sold by the Pharmacy that employs them on the grounds of "personal conscience." Under this legislation, other healthcare providers can also refuse treatment on these grounds as well; while this is presumably limited to performing abortions, if not written explicity to state this, a physician could theoretically refuse other treatment on the grounds they object to a female cancer patient terminating a pregnancy in order to undergo treatment (something that may be against the physician's religious beliefs).

Why is it that a healthcare provider/pharmacist can refuse to do something that is clearly a potentially routine part of a job and/or specialty when it comes to women's health issues/reproductive medicine but not another when said healthcare provider could easily choose to work at a facility that does not offer services they find morally objectionable (heck a doctor could specialize in a branch of medicine that wouldn't entail abortions). Is legislation really necessary to allow people to refuse something that is a legal, and likely, routine part of that job based on their moral objections? We don't normally provide legal protections for everyone who takes a job knowingly not wanting to perform certain functions, if I keep kosher and work at a restaurant, I cannot refuse to put in an order for pork chops or a cheeseburger based on my moral objections any more than a vegetarian could. The right appears to be getting even more overzealous to confer new rights of protection for personal/moral beliefs that cannot be applied equally because they are limited to those who are offended by abortion.

This, of course, leads to fears that abortion is most definitely not the stopping point for this movement; the next steps will include outlawing IVF & contraception because "every 'life' is sacred" from conception through birth, and then at the very end of life until both the heart and brain cease to perform any activity. The period in between is not too much of a concern it seems. Prolifers who post on the Pro-Choice America blog have stated that they are sure they are in the majority and that contraception is not at risk, but they've also made some statements that sound very inconsistent. doesn't sound particularly assuring and doesn't make a strong case for their own opinion [emphasis added] :

"Ol Cranky,

I guess I misled you a little bit without meaning to. I consider hormonal contraception to be an abortafacient, but I do not think that it should be outlawed like I believe that surgical abortion should be, nor do I know anyone who has put forth any legislation to outlaw hormonal contraception. Do you know of any legislation currently being pushed that will outlaw the pill? I know the FDA is still considering whether or not to make EC available over the counter, but I don't consider that to be legislation.

Perhaps you think I am inconsistant in my abortion views because I do not believe that an abortafacient should be outlawed. It really comes down to this: I believe that no one should be legally allowed to use an overt act to kill another human being except in matters of self-defense. The pill does not do this....an abortionist does." [Posted by: exdem | February 24, 2005 07:27 PM]

Another inconsitency I've come across from some "Prolifers" is intentional early induction of labor and delivery of a fetus with significant fetal deformity [emphasis added]:

"It seems the moral respect due to a fetus with anencephaly who has no prospects of long-term survival could be ethically reconciled with a compassionate desire to alleviate her distress and minimize potential health risks for the mother. This could be done by inducing labor at a stage when a healthy fetus would have a reasonable chance of survival with fewer health risks for the mother. Bearing in mind that clinical assessments vary for each individual case, induction from 33 completed weeks would seem reasonable since normal infants have a two-out-of-three chance of survival from 33 weeks without treatment in NICU. The mother could have the consolation of nursing her baby until natural death occurs due to the infant's inherent lethal condition. This stage was deemed to be the threshold of viability prior to NICU. Henry Davis summed up the moral consensus of the 1950s as follows:

Expulsion of the fetus between the seventh and the ninth month is premature birth or acceleration of birth, not abortion. [Father Norman M. Ford, S.D.B., extracted from The Prenatal Person: Ethics from Conception to Birth (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2002)]

Some hospitals (including Catholic ones) have induced significantly earlier that 32 weeks; if the delivery does not result in still birth, neonatal death generally comes shortly thereafter. If decisions are made based on anticipated long-term survival, is it not inconsitent that early induction that will surely hasten death due to underlying disease by adding co-morbidities of prematurity that would make a baby resulting from live birth struggle all that much more? In the views of some "prolifers" this is acceptable because a baby is "born" but these same people condemn termination of pregnancy via surgical means & ru-486 w/misoprostol at an even earlier stage (which decreases potential for a losing struggle until death) as murder? Even in the case of anencephaly, some babies survive longer than a few hours/days/weeks. Based on a "Prolife" argument of inherent right to life regardless of quality/duration and desire to extend the duration of life even a little, wouldn't any "Prolifer" be compelled to keep even a child with a rapidly fatal defect in utero and not induce/deliver early unless the mother's life is in imminent danger?

The "Prolife" movement bases it's desire to ban abortion, etc. based on an appreciation of the sanctity of life they frequently claim is missing in those who do not want abortion outlawed.

Now this was not meant to be a treatise on "Prolife" v Pro-choice, I provide this background so you can understand what was rattling around in my little head as I started to contemplate the focus of the "Prolife" community on gestation/ensuring birth and the terminal stages of life. It's just that all this stuff, made me start thinking about other things.

In particular, I wondered how many of those who think abortion should be illegal in all cases but ectopic pregnancy (especially those who consider hormonal contraception to be an abortifacient) proactively engage in other activities to help save the lives of others. By this, I don't mean getting involved to fight euthanasia or the Terry Schiavo situation, I mean how many are actively putting their own bodies on the line in order to preserve the lives of others?

• How many of these people are regular blood and/or pheresis donors?
  
• How many of these people are registered in the national bone marrow donor program?
  
• How many are registered as organ and tissue donors so that others who would have a chance at long term survival could benefit and take advantage of their right to life after the death of another?
  
• Some "Prolifers" would refuse to donate based on a belief that brain death isn't death (and if other major organs aren't perfused adquately, they won't do anyone any good); my own personal opinion is that this argument is inconsitent with a belief that a woman should choose a definitive death from a treatable disease by refusing treatment in order to continue even the earliest of pregnancies should also require any "Prolifer" that meets criteria for death criteria to allow harvesting of criticial organs in order to protect the sacred potential for continued life of another. However, those who have this concern about "killing people to harvest organs" could always become a living donor (kidney, pancreas or partial liver) or even provide cadaver skin grafts for burn victims.

Is it really accurate for "Prolifers" to pass judgment on those who support reproductive rights including abortion have no appreciation for the sanctity of human life?

Brain Death Controversy in Jewish Law

The Mitzvah of Organ Donation

Does my Religion Approve of Organ Donation? - information about views of many major religions.



Tags:abortion;prolife;pro-choice;organ donation

edited 5mar05 13:00

Sphere: Related Content

Some people have way too much time on their hands

Will vampires only be safe inside or on cloudy nights?

Will the launching keep Satan away and prevent the Rapture? If so, how disappointed will these people be?

More importantly, if gay people can't adopt, who's going to adopt the gay babies?

Sphere: Related Content

Well, this is different. . .a little more Joogling

Last night, after my blatant Joogling, I went to Google to see how the whole Jew search looked. The evil anti-Jew URL was waaaaaaaaaay down on the list and there were quite a few legitimate Jew sites topping it off. Today, when I got home, the anti-Jew URL was back on top again - hence, more joogle-bombs.

I did come across something very new that I'd never heard of: Jews for Islam. Of course, I had to click on the link - I was compelled, I tell you. What I thought would be an interfaith peace group composed of Jews and Muslims using a clever play on the "Jews for Jesus" (click on the Jew link and/or check out Jews for Judaism and you'll know why this doesn't work) name isn't that at all. It's really about Jews converting to Islam and the similarities between the religions (which, I guess, is a surprise for some people). I think they were either founded by "ex-Jews for Jesus" or they target them with the following:

Accepting the Messiah Jesus (Yeshua) - without the Christian theology

I've never heard any of the myths they correct, but did find a different take on why the Muslim "Sabbath" is on Friday than what I'd stated here:

When the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar in 1582 CE, ten days were deleted in order to bring the calendar in synchronism with the seasons. Thus, 1582-OCT-4 (a Thursday) was followed by 1582-OCT-15 (a Friday), indicating the Sabbath was originally Friday, rather than Saturday.

I think the thing that would raise the most hackles from those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is:

Hey, if the New Testament over-rides the Jewish Bible, why wouldn't you believe the Q'uran (or as I like to call it "Scriptures III: the other sequel") supersedes the NT?

Well, Olbermann is doing a bit on Frequent-BoTox cards, Restalyne-rewards and Viagra's happy humpers program.


On a completely different subject: I have to bring dessert for Dinner night on Saturday - it's a Cajun theme this month. Somehow, I'm not sure my idea of "blackened" cookies will go over too well, so if anyone has any quick & easy ideas let me know.


Tags:Jews;Islam;inerrancy

Sphere: Related Content

Juden: Geißel der Menschheit (the "truth" revealed)

Apparently, Jews really are the scourge of the earth (title translation courtesy of SDL international).

As a Jew I had always thought otherwise, but I have recently been corrected by those who know much more about Jews than I. How do I know these people are right and know all about Jews? Well, they've provided me with the facts about Jews. Facts provided by upstanding citizens other those who are members of the fine organizations referenced in last night's post.

For example, this nice, liberal told me to look at the names of people in the DOD, finance/banking and Hollywood (just my luck, I'm not related to any of them), they sound pretty darned tootin' Jewish, don't they? This shows Jews have a disproportionate amount of control that they abuse for purposes so dubious, they're downright Jewbious! My clever assertion that not all people with traditionally Jewish names are Jews, some "Jewish" names may just be Germanic ones was met with a response of some really are Jews (and those speak for all of us), and my logical explanation for the proliferation of Jews in banking was pathetic.

I grew up in Philly and the surrounding suburbs, I'd say a good 90% of my friends growing up were Catholic to the point that when I was really little I thought everyone was Catholic except my family and a few other people at synagogue (we won't go into what I thought the word Protestant meant). When I lived in the city, my friends all went to Catholic school (there were 2 types of people: Catholic and Public); when we moved to the 'burbs most of my friends had to go to CCD because they mixed with the Publics and needed more than Mass to ensure they'd go to Heaven (that's what I was told and I had no reason not to believe them). I've found the Archdioscese of Philadelphia (and the surrounding areas) to be a couple of steps to the right of the Pope. In Junior High my best friends were told by their CCD teacher that I would go to Hell because the Jews killed Jesus - this was in the late 70's, after Vatican II. Needless to say, I had to go to CCD to calm them down (that cool, short-lived, Pope was coming to the US - I got a silver medallion to commemorate it). I've since met Catholics from all over who were shocked and appalled to find out that Catholic children in the Philly area (at least some of them) were still being taught that Jews are Christ-killers at late as 1978. Apparently the Pope is fallible as he made a grave mistake not continuing to teach the truth about how Jews, who "who used the Law of Moses like a battering ram to get their own way" to railroad Jesus, to "keep themselves in sub-authority just beneath the occupying Romans." Not only did those damned Jews orchestrate the whole murder of G-d's only son, their obstinate descendants still refuse to repent and accept him as saviour and, yet, that's not the worst thing about them!

The worst thing about Jews is the fact that they are as bad, if not worse, than Nazis. Nazis, if they actually did what they're accused of, only tried to rid the world of those who offend G-d: Jews (who we've established are vermin) and homosexuals. Jews, on the other hand, not only condones the wholesale murder of innocent unborn babies their religion actively encourages women to abort on a whim.

I guess if I spent more time in Shul, I would have known the truth all along. . . just like all those fine people who've set me straight.


Tags:Jews;anti-semitism

Sphere: Related Content

3 white supremacists & a baby

Who says racism can't be entertaining?
I wonder if white supremacists prefer powdered doughnuts

Sphere: Related Content

Oh crap it's Sunday, get me to the office on time!

in yet another (successful) attempt at avoiding laundry and other domestic duties, I came across a story on White Pebble about Iraqi students protesting their week-ends being extended from one day off to two.

Before you feel selfish for wishing we could go to the 4-day work week (which is a really good idea in my not-so-humble opinion) you need to understand that it's not that they don't want a 2-day week-end, they just don't like the fact that the second day of their week-end is *gasp* Saturday and that is a holy day for Jews! Of course, my initial reaction to the article was "Oh dear Lord, they're pissed because the second day off is Shabbat for Jews?!? What the Hell is wrong with these people?" I knew the weekly Muslim holy day was Friday, but thought #1 this type of protest was a bit much, and #2 couldn't someone just have gone to whoever chose the day and said "Dude, we like the longer week-end, but Saturday's just not gonna work here"? I vaguely remembered hearing that Muslims start their holy days at sundown and decided to check the veracity of my recalled memory. This search was unsuccessful, but I did find out a few other interesting tidbits:

Friday was the day chosen by Muhammad to commemorate the creation of man on the "sixth day" of creation and to differentiate his followers from Christians and Jews. Muslims don't think of Sabbath the way Jews & Christians do, as the Qu'ran instructs Muslims to "disperse in the land for seeking livelihood after prayers are over." (62:9-10) because “He made the night for rest and the day for earning livelihood” (78:11).

I still don't understand why the Powers That Be in Iraq couldn't forsee adding the second day on Saturday as potentially being problematic. They should have known better or at least known to discuss their plans with community leaders; perhaps they're graduates of the W school of Social Ignorance with degrees in ethnic myopia. This doesn't exactly excuse the equally ridiculous over-reaction and protests by students which is most likely the result of years of anti-Jewish propaganda.

FYI: for anti-Muslim Christians who'd point to the audicity of Muhammad of "changing the Sabbath" to Thursday, it should be pointed out that Jesus and the apostles celebrated Sabbath starting at sundown on Friday through sundown on Saturday. The Christian sabbath was changed to Sunday by Constantine because he wanted it on the day to honor the Sun-god.

(yeah, I joogled a bit - you can guess what was #1 on google again)


Tags:Muslim;Religion;Sabbath

Sphere: Related Content

Put on Depends

and gizoogle my blog.

Sphere: Related Content

If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him

I get my weekly Torah letters on Monday, I try to hold off reading them until Shabbat (this has become my way of keeping Sabbath as of late). We're on Exodus 30:11-34:35; the 10 commandments, the Golden Calf.

Whenever I describe my religion and why it resonates with me, the first thing that comes to mind are the words of my childhood Rabbi telling me that Judaism is a "living religion". Being that my rebbe was a major-league frum Yid whose family had a personal relationship with Schneerson, his statement seemed quite revolutionary to me at the time. After reading Rabbi Neal Joseph Loevinger's commentary to this week's parsha, the Idol of Complacency, I realize my rebbe's words were anything but revolutionary - unless you consider the truth to be so.

We, as humans, understand things in our own terms. We try to nail them down to little tidbits as we comprehend them and, frequently, end up judging and labeling based on our understanding - our interpretation. This harkens back to the argument about the inerrancy of the Bible. I hear "Scripture said this" and "there is no room for interpretation of Scripture; The Bible is complete and every word is the literal truth" and yet we somehow not only have three Abrahamic religions (and multiple denominations of those religions) that disagree about certain things based on the same words.

Why is it that G-d does not want humans to make any graven images or molten statues of himself? Could it be, as Rabbi Loevinger asserts, that He doesn't want us to make a "fixed" image of Him? We fix an image of who or what someone is based on our own notion of who/what they are. That image may or may not be accurate, it may or may not be complete and/or it may or may not be outdated. Regardless, we have that image, and it is most often immutable much to their (and our) detriment. Just as we frequently fail to see the person before us due to our image of them (or even of ourselves, when we are not quite the being captured in our own self-image), we frequently fail to see all that G-d is.

When we limit G-d we limit his words which, in turn, decreases the boundaries of our minds and sets our hearts. In doing so, we allow ourselves to stand in His stead, to cast judgment in His name and to accuse those doing what they think is humane of quite the opposite. We do this because we have set our understanding into stone, not due to the words he cast there.


Tags:Judaism;Religion;Exodus;Scripture;inerrancy

Sphere: Related Content

He came, She spit, They conceived

disproving the belief that it's better to give than receive

I heard about this case around the holidays and was concurrently amused and mortified (more the latter to be honest).

Dr. Sharon Irons claims Dr. Richard Phillips gave her a "gift" and she had every right to use it in any way she felt suitable - two years later, she hit him with a paternity suit and now he pays $800/month in child support.

As physicians, they both knew that oral sex would not reasonably lead to pregnancy, she didn't discuss her plans with him (because he would not have agreed); she figured she'd just have her cake and eat it too. One has to wonder why she waited almost two years to let him know what she'd done and that he had a child if she didn't feel she'd done anything less than honorable.

Phillips has, legitimately, sued for emotional distress. Her attorney had the audacity to say "There's a 5-year-old child here, imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth." Hmmm, imagine how the child will feel knowing the circumstances of his/her conception...come to think about it, however will Dr. Irons explain that?


Tags:oral sex;artificial insemination;paternity suit

Sphere: Related Content

Still

Always in Spring
jostled from wintry sleep
the time of renewal
I awaken to dreams of you
though you do not exist
real enough in my mind
my heart
with me you stay
always
more than a memory
I travel the road not taken
I could not do right by you
know I did right by you then
not just by me
my mistake, my folly
and so much more
I've learned
and felt
more than I thought capable
a pain that lingers, the dull throb
taps on my mind, a healthy reminder
I tried my best
chose accordingly
paid the price
more hefty than I could have known
consequences accepted with little option
but not so severe as what could have been, those you might face alone
and I don't know what will be
so you are not

© 1994

Sphere: Related Content

verbatim et litteratim

While reviewing this (or, more accurately, last) week's parsha, I came across a commentary by Rabbi Shimon Felix called "The multiplicity of meanings." In it, Felix cite's the Ramban's preface to Genesis in which he states

the Torah is written with no punctuation, no sentences, just letters in a row, and therefore could, in theory, be divided up into words and sentences in a way other than the way we traditionally divide it up. The Torah would then be read in a way that is substantially different from the way in which it is traditionally read, communicating other meanings, other messages, other truths.

The order of the Jewish Bible (TANAKH) is different from the Christian OT (TAKHAN). As such even if the original text were a literal representation of G-d's word, it's easy to understand why there could be different interpretation to actual intent. To further exacerbate the situation, there have been changes made to the text through copying and translation (some intentional to change meaning and some creative to make the book more "poetic"). One's belief in the inerrancy of the bible is dependent on a personal understanding of what's being referred to as complete and error free.

The context matters. If you know I uttered the words "the sky is blue" but you don't know the full context, you can make some assumptions about the meaning and why I made the statement, but you don't know if I'm really trying to show an example of the color blue to someone, commenting about whether it looks like it's going to rain, saying what a lovely day it is, or if I was singing along to a song and there was no actual meaning behind my use of the words.

There are different bibles, different interpretations, additional religious texts to accompany scripture (and different interpretations of those), different religions/denominations, lack of religions, spirituality outside the constraints of organized religion, monotheism, polytheism, atheism, animism, etc. We all think our own understanding is the correct one (well, maybe not all of us, but a good many do) and, in a country with no "State Religion" how do we legislate based on scripture we don't all subscribe to? Those who think this is a Christian country, which would allow us to legislate on some non-denominational Christian scripture, ignore the fact there are vast differences of understanding of what is right and what should be legislated not only between denominations but often within them.

So, whose god is right? Between the monotheistic religions, there isn't a "which" G-d; there are different interpretations of scripture and it's intent, differening ideas of whose concept is right, but that 1 god is the same regardless of our different understanding of him. There are atheistic religions and polytheistic religions as well, but again, the "which" god or gods really doesn't matter because it's our (human) understanding of that we ascribe to a god or different gods. Does everyone who has ever encountered you describe you exactly the same way? Unless you're Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. . .

God has three sorts of servants in the world: Some are slaves and serve God from fear; others are hirelings and serve for wages; and the last are children, who serve because they love. (F. G. Marchant, The Preacher's Homiletic Commentary, Joshua)

Those who following blindly or out of fear are missing out on so much that the world G-d gave us offers as they are threatened by anything requiring thought. Those who co-opt religion for their own political purposes and financial gain have obvious and ulterior motives.

Those who choose to believe after considerable thought and are comfortable with ourselves and our faith have no fear of challenge to our own beliefs. We feel no need to impose our religion on others and do not rail at those who reject our beliefs. As such we have no difficulty with tolerating and extending respect to others. Respecting the lives and beliefs of others does not mean we personally agree with them or even condone all their actions, it just means we realize that we have no right injecting our personal beliefs into the lives of others. People like us from all faiths & denominations (including rational Evangelicals) need to band together with each other and non-believers alike to forge a bond of mutual respect, develop consensus on issues to reach common goals, and to ensure the United States remains a country in which those in the minority are not subjected to the tyranny of the not-too-moral majority.



Tags:Judaism;First Amendment;Christian;Scripture;Tolerance;inerrancy

Sphere: Related Content

. . . so that we can comfort those in any trouble

with the comfort we ourselves have received from G-d (2 Corinthians 1:4)

In a sad note Anne Basso, from Our Homeschool, is going through one of the saddest experiences a person can experience, the pending premature induction of her baby who was just diagnosed with a fatal neural tube defect. Despite our frequent disagreements, my thoughts and prayers are with her and her family at this time.




Tags:neonatal loss;Humanae Vitae

Sphere: Related Content

Take the power

to set you free
Kick down the door and throw away the key
Give up your needs...
Your poisoned seeds
Find yourself elected to a different kind of creed
"Money Can't Buy It" © 1992 Annie Lennox

One quick note before I turn in, hoping to get a decent night's sleep for once. I know I rag on the Fundies and have ot remind myself that there are mainstream "Evangelical" Churches that aren't radical right politicos. I also know that there are people within the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement who are good Christians in every sense of the word.

There's something special about people who are on a "higher"spiritual plane (for lack of better terminology), and by using the word spiritual I'm not referring exclusively to members of organized religion or those who are overtly devout/frum. Maybe it's a degree of self-actualization, a better relationship with the world, a combination of both and/or something altogether different. I don't know. What I can tell you is that when it comes to "testifying" and/or expressing your faith (something considered key to Evangelical faiths), the best way to do it is by living it. People recognize when someone is settled, comfortable with themselves and "right with G-d" - it shows in how they act and how they treat others (and how unthreatened they are by the beliefs of others). Those subscribing to other ideologies are very comfortable around these people because they see us for who we are just as we see the light that shines from them.


Tags:Religion;Christian

Sphere: Related Content

Evangelicals to Americans: Please don't misunderstand

We're not trying to convert you, we just want you to know Christ

According to a recent AP story, Evangelicals attending a meeting at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary last week expressed concerns that mainstream Americans misundertand them and harbor an inaccurate view that they seek to create a Christian Government in the United States. According to Timothy Tennent, Professor of World Missions at Gordon-Conwell, Evangelicals can be respectful of other religions and have no desire to impose Christianity on unwilling Americans. According to Tennent, Evangelicals want to protect the right of members of other religions to be members of other religions in this country, but they still "want them to know Christ." Additionally, Robert Wenz of the National Association of Evangelicals distanced more practical Evangelicals from Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority" indicating their representation of Conservative Christianity was regrettable. According to Mr. Wenz, it was "supposed to be about making America a nice place for Christians to live." Wenz went on further to indicate that Evangelicals see themselves in a culture was against a "movement that seeks to impose a totally secular world view."

There are a few things I'm not sure Mr. Tennent & Mr. Wenz quite understand themselves. Mr. Wenz states people can be their different religion, but he still wants them to "know Christ." Knowing that Evangelicals not only think all other ideological beliefs are woefully inferior to Christianity, that their brand of Christianity is superior to all others, and that part of evangelism is testifying and prosyletizing in an effort to save the souls of others by "knowing Christ," makes his statement supporting the rights of non-Christians and comments that Evangelicals can be respectful a little hard to believe. The veracity of the statement is even harder to accept considering Evangelical support of current legislative proposals regarding changes to the US Constitution to define marriage limited to heterosexual couples in an effort to defend marriage against the gay threat; and state level legislative proposals to bring religion into the public schools and state level proposals regarding gay marriage sponsored by representatives that state the bills are intended to legislate in accordance to scripture. Furthermore, Mr. Wenz's statements imply the actions of Evangelicals are justifiable in response to some threat against their ability to live Christian lives.

If they truly do not want to impose a Christian state and want to make the claim they can be respectful of the beliefs of others, they need to starting putting their proverbial money where their mouths are. Support of laws aimed at limiting rights of others based on scripture and insinuating religious dogma into government and public schools undermines their assertion that a Christian state is not their goal. I'm sure they would agree that nothing good could come from the government injecting itself into chruch doctrine, the same could be said for the church injecting itself into government. Our founding fathers understood this and, in an effort to prevent the corruption of religion from government interference and the imposition of religion into legislative affairs, they included language to prevent just this in the Bill of Rights.

Those of us on the other side of the "culture war" are not preventing expressions of faith anywhere outside a private home or house of worship, we are just demanding that there is no endorsement/sponsorship of religion (real or implied) by the government as guaranteed by the US Constitution. People of other backgrounds create an environment/community they feel is desirable, that's what makes it a nice place. Many of us they are "at war" with are deeply religious, but understand we live in a diverse country and respect that others, just like us, we do not want the imposition of values inconstent with our own by the government or in public schools. There is no way for public schools and the government to adequately and equitably address all religions (and the lack thereof) in a way that would not be offensive to someone. As such, these domains remain secular. People who want their children to get a religious education and learn a specific set of values as part of their regular schooling send their children to Parochial schools. Public schools were not created for their children to use as a tool to witness for their faith - if they don't want their children taught/lectured on values and beliefs inconsistent with their own and will fight it tooth and nail, why do they expect other parents not to do the same?

This does not mean that a person living in this country must lead a secular life or that religion is stripped from the people or country. The boundaries of propriety are essentially limited to government/public schools; and even within these locations there's nothing to prevent an individual from prayer or reading the bible on their own time, provided they are not creating a hostile environment for those around them. The country is not, by any stretch of the imagination, sanitized of religion.

We must remind ourselves that respect, as it pertains to tolerance of those who are different from ourselves, means "to avoid violation of or interference with." Affording gay people the right to marry does not require the Evangelical community (or anyone else, for that matter) to approve/accept/condone homosexuality; showing respect for the rights of these individuals would just mean not interfering in their lives or their pursuit of the same dreams and desires that heterosexuals have. Prosyletizing/testifying to a captive audience of schoolchildren in a public school can only be perceived as an attempt at conversion (based on the intent of testifying), which most reasonable people would consider interference.

Many of us understand that Hollywood and pop culture are not exactly big proponents of morality, one does not have to be an Evangelical Christian to want to tune them out. They worship a different green god, and as long as that god provides, they will continue to do so. A repsonsible person tries to go out of their way to avoid noxious stimuli. If mainstream entertainment doesn't suit Evangelicals, they can turn to the thriving Christian entertainment industry and avoid secular programs/music that doesn't sit well with them. Unfortunately, the world around us is not sanitized to prevent everyone from exposure to that which offends. We can handle these situations by walking away, by engaging in an irrational battle to arrange the world to our liking or by understanding that it will happen and addressing the situation like a responsible adult.



Tags:Evangelical;First Amendment;Christian;Separation of Church and State

Sphere: Related Content

Pro-Responsibility: Responsible People Making Responsible Decisions

Reproductive rights guarantee us the freedom to become a parent, or not; to use contraception to prevent pregnancy & take prophylactic measures to prevent spread of communicable disease should we chose to engage in sexual activity; to make informed and thoughtful decisions about our lives; and to consent, or not, in private, in accordance with our personal beliefs without government intervention. These aren't just rights, they're responsibilities as well: the responsibility to educate yourself about how your body works, how to prevent disease and avoid unintended pregnancy; the responsibility to learn about all your options should you face the one of the consequences of sexual activity; and the potential long-term ramifications of any decision you make.

Sexual intimacy is the domain of those mature enough to be responsible and held accountable for things that may occur after the moment has passed. Learn, think & act accordingly.

Responsibility. I'm all for it.

(Pro-Responsibility, the unofficial position of CGCS)

NARAL/Pro-Choice America has pledged to support the Putting Prevention First Bill sponsored by House Minority Leader, Harry Reid. Despite the differences between those who want to outlaw abortion and those who support leaving decisions about continuing or terminating pregnancies up to a woman, there is one thing we all have in common and that's the desire to drastically reduce the number of, if not eradicate, unintended pregnancies. I've already documented my suggestions as to how this can be acheived, but I'm glad to see that Pro-Choice groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are actively supporting the bill and are trying to find common ground with those adamantly opposed to abortion. While my hopes aren't high that the more extreme in the "Pro-Life" Movement will work together with "Pro-Choice" people as, in general, my experiences with most are that any action other than condemnation and outlawing abortion is considered as disengenous and "not enough" compromise from the left, it's certainly something we need to do with or without their assistance.

One of the most critical objectives is to reduce the number of sexually active teenagers and resultant pregnancies/STDs. A 2004 study conducted by Jacqueline E. Darroch and Susheela Singh for the Guttmacher Institute indicates that the teen pregnancy rate in the US, while among the highest in the developed world, decreased in the 90s. According to the report, more than 75% of teen pregnancies were unintended with approximately 35-38% ending in abortion. Increased abstinence may account for a reduction in the teen pregnancy rate of approximately 25% between 1988 and 1995; use of long-acting hormonal contraceptives seems to account for the reduction in pregnancy rates of sexually active teenagers. As such, it makes sense to do everything possible to provide sex education that encourages teenagers to abstain from sexual activity until adulthood in a way that won't make them just tune the message out.

I know teens don't want to hear they're not mature enough to have sex because they all think they're very mature (we did, didn't we?). We need to get the message across that there's something to be said for life experiences (outside of sex) that will enhance their understanding of the world as this will greatly affect their decisions. We need to affirm that while sex can be great, it's in their best interests to wait until they have more life experience and are able to take care of themselves before facing the potential consequences of sexual intimacy. I think a lot of the kids who are sexually active ignore the "wait" message in conjunction with abstinence only education as there's a very judgmental message that "sex outside of marriage (fornication) is immoral" and they must wait until they are married. While it is preferable that they defer sexual intimacy until they are adults in a mutually exclusive relationship; abstinence only education with concentration on marriage ignores that fact that many Americans are deferring marriage to later in life and a message with a focus on marriage is not perceived as realistic to those who are not particularly religious. It is for this reason, and the fact you don't usually limit information taught in school to that used in the near-term future, that information on use of prophylactic measures to prevent communicable diseases and unintended pregnancy. This information can be used by those who, despite encouragement otherwise, insist on engaging in sexual activity. The information can also be utilized by those who do wait until marriage to have sex that want to defer starting a family until a later date.

It's all about being responsible and making thoughtful, informed decisions.




Tags: Reproductive rights; unplanned pregancy; Pro-Choice;teen pregnancy;sex education;abortion

Sphere: Related Content

must . . . STOP . . . LIBERALS

because a mind is a terrible thing

States Considering Legislation to Counter Perceived Liberalism on College Campuses

In an effort to "stem the tide of professors sending students out in the world to vote against the very public policy that their parents have elected us for", Ohio State Senator Larry Mumper has sponsored SB 24 which seems fairly innocuous until you get to Senator Mumper's rationale of trying to prevent students from developing liberal ideological beliefs and Section (C):

Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

Now I have no problem agreeing that Professors should not be introducing subject matter that has no relationship to the coursework under study, but based on Mumper's comments, I have a feeling that anything that doesn't fit neatly with certain agendas may well suddenly become suspect. As for "persistently introducing controversial matter," some coursework is based solely on debate of controversial matter and the subjectivity of interpretation is most likely to turn into litigation or homogenized lectures which are diametrically opposed to the purpose of getting an education.

The proposal would prohibit public and private college professors from presenting opinions as fact or penalizing students for expressing their views. Anyone who's been to college has probably experienced the professor who graded their paper based on the views presented not the quality of the argument and submitted work (in my case, it was my Teratology Professor who wanted a verbatim regurgitation of his lecture and did not appreciate that half the class submitted a response with citations to support a slightly different conclusion - especially since this was consistent with a certain Pharmacology Professor's lecture); this sort of thing shouldn't happen but it does and is not the domain of liberal vs conservative, it's the difference between someone who wants to educate and someone who wants their ego stroked. Additionally, since the statute applies to private colleges can the legislature ensure that Religious colleges provide equal time for the advancement of ideas that run counter to religious doctrine? If they cannot, they need to either limit the bill to Public Universities/Colleges or scrap it all together as there is no way to apply this equally as supposedly intended.

Otterbein College sophomore Charis Bridgman tends to keep quiet in class if she thinks her professor might disagree with her Christian-influenced ideas. "They might chastise me, or not even listen to my opinion or give me a chance to explain," she said.

She hasn't spoken up and is making an assumption without even trying and this is the Professor's fault? Charis, you're 19 and supposedly going to college to get an education, speak up already, but know that if you think your view may be controversial/not well received you need to be prepared:

1. Think about how best to present your views (you're more likely to be treated with respect if you are respectful yourself)
2. Support your position clearly
3. Open debate means being prepared to take criticism (and it's not always constructive)
4. Most importantly, the best way to test your own beliefs is to have them challenged (this helps you delineate the nuances & shore up your arguments; research the opposing view with an open mind, this does not mean you're expected to change your mind it means you're expected to learn and understand the issue and controversy as a whole - this will also help you in those time in which you will have to respectfully disagree).

You may also find that the Professor you expect to chastise you has an increased respect for you just by virtue of the fact you spoke up, presented your case, addressed dissention and stood your ground with grace. What you learn from the disagreement and debate is invaluable and you're going to college to learn, correct?

"I see students coming out having gone in without any ideological leanings one way or another, coming out with an indoctrination of a lot of left-wing issues," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Mumper, a former high school teacher whose Republican party controls the Legislature.

Umm, so it would be OK if they were indoctrinated with Conservative propaganda?
The mood on college campuses varies and pendulum swings back and forth. Some colleges are extremely liberal as a whole and some extremely conservative; most have a mix.

For a man who used to teach HS, he knows little about children and young adults. Teenagers and young adults tend to be idealistic and somewhat naive, as they have little real-life experience to help them put things in perspective. As such, this makes them more likely to have "liberal" leanings trying to make sure everyone is treated fairly and equally regardless. Many kids don't come across views dissimilar to their own until college and frequently check out different groups of people with different views as their own are still developing. Just like teenagers, college students are still more influenced by their circle of friends than their Professors or courses. Additionally, as people gain life experience, they run into the gray areas in which what is right and wrong isn't so obvious; this is why they need to be able to think critically so they can define their own views. In my own life, I was a bit of a "bleeding-heart liberal" (just shy of granola) as a child, picked up some "conservative" beliefs as I started to understand the news and was pretty much moderate starting in college until relatively recently when the Neo-Cons and "Religious Right" started scaring the Hell out of me and had that reactionary jump to the left. Propaganda and indoctrination (regardless of whetehr it's Conservative or Liberal) only works well (and in a sustainable fashion) on those afraid/too lazy to think for themselves.

Mumper said he is concerned universities are not teaching the values held by taxpaying parents and students.

Gee Senator, I'm glad you weren't my "teacher" in HS, since you don't seem to understand that Universities aren't supposed to teach "values", let alone those held by taxpayers. University Professors are not elected officials whose job is to further government programs and advance the political needs of a constituency. The goal of a University is to educate those enrolled there; this means presenting ideas, theories, facts within the context of a curriculum. Just in case you don't have a dictionary handy, I've provided a critical definition for you:

Educate:

1. To develop the innate capacities of, especially by schooling or instruction.
2. To provide with knowledge or training in a particular area or for a particular purpose: decided to educate herself in foreign languages; entered a seminary to be educated for the priesthood.
3.
a. To provide with information; inform: a campaign that educated the public about the dangers of smoking.
b. To bring to an understanding or acceptance: hoped to educate the voters to the need for increased spending on public schools.
4. To stimulate or develop the mental or moral growth of.
5. To develop or refine (one's taste or appreciation, for example).

Tags:education;First Amendment;legislation

Sphere: Related Content

Commandment 1(a) - Alabama style

You will say the pledge, dammit!

After realizing that Alabama state law only provided that students be afforded the opportunity to say the pledge when other schools across the country mandate it, AL State Senator Bradley Byrne (R-Montrose) proposed a bill to require that each day begin in Alabama public schools with students and teachers reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill passed on a voice vote without any audible dissent. Not to be outdone, Sen. Curt Lee (R-Jasper) also submitted a bill to require each public school in Alabama to display framed or mounted copies of the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. In all fairness, Sen. Byrne's bill does have an opt out policy for teachers and students who object or are citizens of another country (and you know elementary school children feel empowered to do just that without fear of retribution from less than understanding class-mates), but I have to point out the irony of the new law and requirements of Sen. Jasper's bill:

• Jehovah's witnesses cannot recite the Pledge because it is against their religion. The religious proscription is based on the pesky little commandment that goes something like this:"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
• The First Amendment of the US Constitution expressly stipulates that no law be passed "respecting establishment of religion"

Contrary to popular belief, the 10 Commandments are religious doctrine. Don't get me wrong, there's some damn good advice in them that everyone would be wise to follow regardless of their belief in G-d (or not), but the first commandment is to believe in G-d. Surely, I am not the only one to see the disconnect here.

I agree that the Decalogue is perfectly appropriate in Sunday school, Church, even your own home (though I do think that when present the 10 commandments to children, it should be converted to child friendly text; how do you explain adultery to a 7 year old?). In a public school setting, however, it's inappropriate because it advances theistic ideology. More specifically, it advances monotheism and doing so in public school implies endorsement to a captive audience of children. You can't just say to these kids, "oh honey you're Hindu or Buddhist or atheist so just don't think about that on the wall" it does affect children and sets them up for unecessary judgment that can interfere with the expressed purpose of public school - to educate our children.

It is the responsibility of the parents (and religious institutions) to teach values to children. Murder is not wrong and illegal because G-d said so, G-d say it's wrong because it is inherently wrong. You do not have to believe in G-d to be moral (and we all know people who purport to believe in G-d and/or religion who are not exactly moral beings). Regardless of your personal views, to imply otherwise, is counter-productive (and is one of the reasons some react so negatively to religion). If you want to post 10 commandments in schools, adapt them to fit the purpose of the public school system. So, without further ado, I present my:

Ten Commandments of Modern Elementary Education

1. Treat the teachers with respect and pay attention in class
2. Be respectful of your classmates, they have feelings just like you
   
3. Do not swear; only use appropriate language on school grounds
4. Do your homework and come to class prepared
5. Let your parents know what you're doing in school and invite them to be a part of your education
6. Do not commit an act of violence; fighting will not be tolerated
7. Be loyal to your friends and your school; don't be a snitch or diss people who depend on you
8. Do not steal; you don't want someone taking your stuff without permission so don't take theirs
9. Do not lie or make up false stories about people or start rumors
10. Do not envy, jealousy is a wasted emotion and things that might seem better for someone now may not really be as good as you think they are

Tags:Pledge of Allegiance;10 Commandments;First Amendment;legislation;Separation of Church and State;education

Sphere: Related Content

We prefer the term "Selective Discrimination"

Bush calls for end to racism (other forms of discrimation A - OK)

At a White House meeting with prominent black leaders on Tuesday, President Bush reiterated language from his inaugural speech stating "we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time" and like everything else in this great country, the caveat remains "unless BushCo states otherwise."

Whaddya mean gays are discriminated against? They can get married, just not to anyone they'd want to marry:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own." "I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."(George W. Bush, 22 October 2003)

"nothing wrong with discriminating against gays." (VA State Sen. Kenneth Cuccinelli February 2005)

Choosey preachers choose Christians

Under the president's rules, all government contractors, except religious groups, are now forbidden to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. Thus religious groups are not being treated "like all other groups." Rather, they are being given a special right to engage in religious bigotry in employment in taxpayer-funded programs. Nobody was trying to "discriminate against faith-based organizations" before 2002, as Gonzales suggests. Religious groups were just asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. Gonzales' take on all this is Orwellian.



It's not your lack of religion that makes you enemy of the state, it's your lack of patriotism
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is. " (George W. Bush, 11 January 2005)


Keep your religion in your house of worship, abide by mine everywhere else

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Mr. Bush said. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. (George W. Bush, 11 January 2005)

In an interview in 1999, Bush cited Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court, as justices he especially admires.

Clarence Thomas advanced the position that the constitutionally mandated separation applied to the federal government, but not to individual states -- a position that would allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state religion and advocates allowing states use tax money to proselytize for that state's religion. [Elk Grove v. Newdow, 2004]

Justices Scalia and Thomas do not believe in the right to privacy with regard to sexual activity between consenting adults specifically referencing that once cannot distinguish homosexuality from other traditional morals offenses [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

Heathens need not apply
"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord," he said.


Tags:gay marriage;Patriotism;First Amendment;discrimination;Separation of Church and State

Sphere: Related Content

Today's Special: Jefferson on a Spit

Bill to allow school proselytizing sails through Virginia House panel

Legislation that would open all public property — including schools — to preaching, praying and proselytizing breezed through a House committee on Feb. 4.

The bill would also write into the state Constitution a ban on same-sex marriage. It was endorsed 14-4.

With only four dissenting votes, the House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced a proposed change to religious-freedom guarantees rooted in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and reflected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't even know where to begin. The first amendment of the US Constitution (apparently a minor and non-binding document the Supreme Court uses for grins) states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Government property is not your publicly funded church and the government is not permitted to sponsor or endorse religion (any religion). One's right to freedom of expression does not supercede the right to freedom of religion of another. If you want to proselytize, do it somewhere other than public schools and government property. It is not my responsibility to fund your religious activities, especially those targeted at infringing on my rights so you can try to convert me to your religion.

The religious-freedom resolution found wide support for remedying what its sponsor, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., contends is a growing bias against Christians.

He said other nations upheld their founding religious tenets and compelled respect for them, specifically noting the Muslim culture of Arab countries as an example. Then, he quoted Patrick Henry in appealing for greater leeway for Christianity.

Yes Henry wanted more leeway for Christianity, and yet, he did not prevail in attempts to make the US a country with a state religion. I think it's a safe bet to say he lost the appeal because his suggestions were not consistent with the general consensus of our forefathers; had they agreed the language of the first amendment would have been much different than what was ratified. There is no growing bias against Christians, nobody is preventing Christians from practicing their religion as they see fit. There is, however, a ground-swell of people who do not want so-called "Christians" forcing (secular people, people of other religions, non-fundamentalist Christian denominations) their religion on us.

Carrico's reference to the Muslim culture in Arab countries (you know, the religious culture we're currently fighting to bring Democracy & ostensively to provide "freedom" to their people) have something this country does not: a state religion. Despite the fact the majority of Americans happen to be among the drastically endangered Christian religion, the United States is not a Christian Country.

I'm no expert on Constitutional Law, but I'm not sure a state is allowed to create laws that are in direct violation of the US Constitution. If laws are applied equally, what is to prevent use of government buildings & public schools to indoctrinate children in the evils of Christianity, G-d and Jesus is wrong (Go Satan?!), well those laws won't apply to equally to everyone. Those proposing & supporting these bills make it clear, the laws will be based on their specific interpretation of acceptable religious belief and/or scripture.

How does this bullshit get through the minds of rational people? Well either they're not really rational, they have an agenda that may seem innocuous to you know but may not be consistent with what you think you'll be getting in the long run, or they actually buy into the blatantly incorrect and politically motivated assertion that voluntary religious expression has been threatened or banned. My guess is there is a distinct agenda to not only obliterate the separation of church and state but to openly declare a state religion. It's interesting, though not surprising, that this is tied into an attempt at banning gay marriage (Virginia , where fornication is fine as long as you're straight). Abortion couldn't achieve this goal because when it comes to affecting their own lives, people will break with church doctrine of their own religions; but when it comes to homosexuality, many straight people focus on the sexual aspect of a gay relationship and, since they do not understand and do not think they'll be affected, they'll support measures based on their own internal "ick" response. What these people don't realize is that once you break with the protections of the 1st Amendment in this manner, legislation can (and will) be based on religious doctrine - in this case, Fundamentalist Christian doctrine.

Virginia is not the only state to decide to legislate with an eye to religion. New Mexico is playing the same breach of the 1st Amendment as VA.

NM legislators aim at banning gay marriage, infringes on freedom of religion as well. Rep. Gloria Vaughn, R-Alamogordo introduced House Bill 445 which not only limits marriage to heterosexual couples, but it provides fines to clergy who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; specifically doesn't recognize same-sex marriages from other states or countries; and nullifies the New Mexico marriage licenses granted to gay couples in Sandoval County last year. Vaughn admitted there are religious intentions behind HB 445. "It defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, which is according to Scripture. God made Adam and Eve, not 'Adam and Steve.'

If Christian religion and scripture defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Christian Churches should not be sanctifying marriages that are not acceptable under their religious doctrine. Religious activities are not under the domain of the state and, as such, church doctrine should not be under consideration in development of civil legislation just as the government should not be dictating religious dogma and practice. This is especially important when considering that not all religions have the same views and doctrine (there is even 100% agreement between Christian denominations).

"Marriage is not defined that way in Hebrew scripture," said Rabbi Marvin Schwab of Temple Beth Shalom. "Whoever says that ought to read the Bible. And when they say they want the law to follow Scripture, do they support public stoning of women who commit adultery?"

Schwab said he considers HB 445 to be a violation of the separation of church and state and an infringement on his right to "interpret the dictates of my religion, as someone who was ordained to do that."

If you're Christian and not too keen on gay folks, these stories may not bother you much. Of course, you're idea of what a good Christian is, does and feels is acceptable may not be the same as the good, moral Christians making the laws. Are you sure you'd be accepted as a good moral Christian to all other Christians who may be in charge of legislating your activities & behavior?



Tags:gay marriage;Religion;First Amendment;legislation;Separation of Church and State

Sphere: Related Content