tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post8043153988434791830..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Fear, Loathing, and LyingTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-26870383192441512242009-04-30T14:56:00.000-05:002009-04-30T14:56:00.000-05:00FrMichael,
I can't say you understand my argumen...FrMichael, <br /><br />I can't say you understand my argument, as it is not even clear you understand the meaning of the word <I>intrinsic</I> -- nor basic Christian doctrine concerning Original Sin and Baptism. The Christian Faith is not intrinsic to people -- they have to come to it. It is something to which they are, to use the old word, "elect" or "called." The chief action in coming to faith resides with God, of course; but still, God chooses whom he wills. Moreover, many people chose other religions than Christianity, or choose none at all, like Fred. Religion may be very important to those who chose it, but it is not intrinsic, or they wouldn't have to choose it!<br /><br />People do not choose their sexual orientation. They do choose their religion. Mountains of evidence show that it is very difficult for people to change their sexual orientation, even when they very earnestly desire such a change. Evidence also shows that people can change their religion quite easily. Yet the state offers protection for both categories -- though you think it shouldn't for the former: that being a belief of your particular brand of religion.<br /><br />As with Phil, you are free to practice your chosen religion, so long as it does not interfere with the freedoms (religious and otherwise) of others. That is part of what it means to live in a pluralistic society. But to date, you have amply revealed yourself to be one of those against whom others' freedoms require the protection of the law. Enjoy your costly victory in California while it lasts; God and the arc of history both tend towards justice.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-26716620425506503882009-04-30T12:13:00.000-05:002009-04-30T12:13:00.000-05:00"This, of course, also reveals your prejudices, in..."This, of course, also reveals your prejudices, in that you privilege religion over something far more intrinsic to people's lives, whether inborn or not."<br /><br />Same-sex orientation is "far more intrinsic to people's lives" than the Christian faith? I figured the majority of activist GLBT Christians believed this, but it is still shocking to read. <br /><br />It is salutary to reread and recommit to the Greatest Commandment from time to time.<br /><br />There is no concupiscent desire, be it sexual, arrogance, slothfulness, and the rest, that should be more central to a Christian's life than their loving relationship with the Creator and Redeemer.<br /><br />BTW I think Phil understands your argument. I certainly do. <br /><br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-66764855711375633292009-04-30T09:20:00.000-05:002009-04-30T09:20:00.000-05:00Phil, you continue to demonstrate the very irratio...Phil, you continue to demonstrate the very irrationality you appear to reject. I will try once more to break through.<br /><br />Your primary confusion in relation to the race question is that you confuse racism with discrimination. Racism may be the motivation for the discrimination, and the underlying cause for protection from it, but it is not the issue. The law cannot stop racism -- but it can criminalize discrimination.<br /><br />It is not the race of a person that is protected by the law, but their actions -- their behavior, or "practices" and "lifestyle choices" if you will: normal human behaviors like buying a house, eating in a restaurant, going to a shop, getting married. The law protects these <I>actions</I>. The real estate agent, waiter, clerk or justice of the peace may well still hate black people "for being black" -- but the anti-discrimination law doesn't protect their race, but their access to public accommodations. <br /><br />Your comparison between "being black" and "engaging in homosexual behavior" is -- as you appear to realize -- mixing apples and bicycles. (Of course, the fact is that gay and lesbian persons don't get discriminated against for engaging in public sexual acts, but for "being [perceived as] gay/lesbian.") The real issue in all anti-discrimination laws is about access to public accommodations. As the law says, people in the business of providing public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of the various protected categories -- but it isn't the categories themselves that are being protected, but the access to accommodations.<br /><br />I really hope this sinks in this time, as I am trying to be as clear as I can. And if you don't get it this time round, I'll consider the discussion closed. There really is no need for you to respond in either case.<br /><br />As to religion, you are of course also free to privilege the lifestyle choice of religion -- surely a "practice" demonstrably more "chosen" than homosexual orientation. This, of course, also reveals your prejudices, in that you privilege religion over something far more intrinsic to people's lives, whether inborn or note. (One wonders how you deal with those religions that do not see homosexuality as morally wrong?)<br /><br />And it being clear you think you know the mind of God, about what is sinful and what isn't -- you clearly don't grasp the significance of what Jesus said to the church. If the church does not have the power to remove certain actions from the category of things previously declared sinful then one wonders what to say about the church having exercised that power for centuries. Or are you unaware of the many changes in moral teaching concerning sin that have taken place in the "two thousand years" of church history? <br /><br />Phil, your position is clear: you reject anti-discrimination laws protecting gay and lesbian persons. You do so because you think it is wrong to protect a behavior which you think is wrong.<br /><br />It is because of people like you that we need such laws.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-89556648187849179922009-04-30T09:18:00.000-05:002009-04-30T09:18:00.000-05:00As one who couldn't even be a Cub Scout (no belief...As one who couldn't even be a Cub Scout (no belief in god) and who has to listen to people on the Right drone on and on about "godless commies" and Leftists claim that "Jesus is the Liberation Theologian", I have encountered prejudice against my religious beliefs. Not nearly as dangerous as anti-black hatred but at least as pervasive as anti-gay.<br /> Gallup took a poll and 40% of Americans couldn't see themselves voting for someone openly gay; nearly 60% said that they couldn't vote for someone who was an atheist.Fred Preusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06438368833909384043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-38177853316932737432009-04-29T22:04:00.000-05:002009-04-29T22:04:00.000-05:00No, Tobias, you used “fear and loathing” to infer ...No, Tobias, you used “fear and loathing” to infer irrationality on your opponents. On that score, you haven’t laid a glove on anything I’ve said.<br /><br />I dismiss anti-discrimination laws as properly being applied to the freely chosen sexual behavior of a certain class of people – that’s right. If the law protects gay people from discrimination, it should protect adulterers as well. That would be real consistency. As it is, there is no “legal principle,” only political pressure tactics that have resulted in a behavior, which most Americans regard as immoral, being added to a list on which it doesn’t belong.<br /><br />Race has nothing to do with it; it’s simply a way for you to slur those who disagree with you. Why don’t you answer these simple yes-or-no questions:<br /><br />Can anybody choose to engage in homosexual behavior?<br /><br />Can anybody choose to be black?<br /><br />The power to bind and loose doesn’t give the Church the power to glorify behavior God regards as sinful. In any case, the topic is of dubious relevance in the case of minor Protestant sects.<br /><br />As to your question, IT, I don’t place religious belief in the same category as the choice of who to have sex with, and how. Now that you have, though – well, like I inferred above, change the paperwork now to say, “Party A,” “Party B,” “Party C,” “continue as necessary.”Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-21288393346887683682009-04-29T16:25:00.000-05:002009-04-29T16:25:00.000-05:00Are you sure you want to give up the racial analog...Are you sure you want to give up the racial analogy? Fine. What if the photographer declined to photograph Jews, or the doctor to treat Muslims? What if it was Christians? What if he refused to phograph a bar mitzvahh party, or a baptism? <br /><br />Religion is the very essence of choice with no biological justification about it. And, I think you probably have no problem with anti-discrimination laws that protect religious practice.<br /><br />You have however very nicely made my point, as Tobias also notes. Your protest is nothing to do with gay marriage. It's that you don't think that gay people should be protected against discrimination. Thanks for at least admitting it. I'm sure you'll be happy to give up your protections to freedom from religious discrimination as a matter of principle, right?IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-73529944522939100722009-04-29T09:56:00.000-05:002009-04-29T09:56:00.000-05:00Phil, you really are now falling under the rubric ...Phil, you really are now falling under the rubric of mere contradiction. I am sorry you do not see the parallels with race (people like the Governor of New York have no trouble understanding that this isn't about "behavior" except the "behavior" of taking part in public accommodations. Gays as well as blacks and the blind are often discriminated against on the basis not only of what they seek to do, but who they are. The "behavior" involved is having equal access to legally protected activities, on an equal basis.)<br /><br />As to your comment about Jesus, I'm surprised you are unaware that this is exactly the power that Jesus committed to his Church -- the power to bind and to loose. You are speaking contrary to the Gospel.<br /><br />The fact that you dismiss anti-discrimination laws so casually only goes to display the depths of your own failure to grasp the legal principle involved. It isn't about substituting "adulterer" and so forth for "gay." The fact is that the law protects gay people from discrimination. It does not protect adulterers. Clearly you think the law has gone to far, and fear it going further. This is where you "fear" comes in -- which if you recall was my original thesis.<br /><br />Thus, raising the slippery slope accusations once again adds nothing to your argument, but only goes to demonstrate the accuracy of mine. You don't like what is, and you fear what might be. As I said, fear and loathing.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-90379835876018866552009-04-28T18:54:00.000-05:002009-04-28T18:54:00.000-05:00Erika, no, I don’t find that blasphemous. On the ...Erika, no, I don’t find that blasphemous. On the other hand, if the idea bothers you so, I’ve got one for you (sorry, Tobias, here I go again): if I had a dollar for every time somebody on your side has told me that Jesus rewrote the religious rules of his day, with the clear implication that so could they, I could buy myself a pretty nice dinner. Do you care to criticize their line of argument?<br /><br />As to your other point, I’m not playing a game of, “my suffering is worse than yours,” nor can I understand how you arrived at that conclusion. In fact, I used the word only to speculate on the activist mentality, not to characterize the fallout on the mainstream of the attempt to rewrite the definition of marriage.<br /><br />I partially concede on the New Jersey case; partially, because the real linchpin of the case was a nonsensical “anti-discrimination” law.<br /><br />On New Mexico, IT, you are making <I>my</I> case, not yours. If the photographer can be persecuted by the state in the absence of something called SS “marriage,” how much worse is it going to be if and when there is such an invention? And, for the record, the photographer declined to photograph what was billed as a “commitment ceremony.” We both know what that is intended to mimic. There’s no discrimination about it, unless you think Big Brother should also compel mall owners to offer space to “explicit” bookstores, or maybe that Democrat campaign consultants should be forced by the state to help get Republicans elected.<br /><br />So, I guess you came close to being right, though, of course, you misrepresented the opposing position. I do want private citizens and business owners to be able to replace “gay” with “pornographer,” “polygamist,” “adulterer,” and so forth. The distinction is obvious, which is why, Tobias, I have a hard time believing you really can’t, “see that the issue is any different than the race issue.” The issue is about (again) <I>behavior</I>, and it always will be, no matter how many times you cry, “race.” And, I’m not offended at learning; the reality is also that crime exists, and people cheat on their spouses, and umpteen other things, and I have no problem with my kids learning about them – I’ll even do the teaching – I just want to make sure they are taught that those things are <I>wrong</I>.<br /><br />Finally, what I will probably do if the majority of Americans ever accept such unions is the same thing you will do when your efforts lead to legalized polygamy and a dramatic reduction in, or elimination of, the age of consent, as they are likely to do. The drinks are on me when that happens; we can have a few, commiserate and come up with some ideas together.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1061203369218303062009-04-25T18:15:00.000-05:002009-04-25T18:15:00.000-05:00IT, thanks for the additional resources.
FrMichae...IT, thanks for the additional resources.<br /><br />FrMichael, an excellent example of <I>tu quoque</I> in all of its resplendence. I suppose you haven't heard of the ethical concept of proportionality? Nothing, of course, justifies any of the bad behavior you recount, but nor does it in any way address the reality of the overwhelming and disproportionate discrimination and abuse leveled at gay and lesbian persons. This is not a "one-sided" observation. There are no "sides" here.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-41346026623347902522009-04-25T17:38:00.000-05:002009-04-25T17:38:00.000-05:00Erika, regarding your list of horrors:
"beaten up...Erika, regarding your list of horrors:<br /><br />"beaten up for being" heterosexual-- I know of a case while I was in the service where gays at a command made repeated passes at a straight sailor, and after he rebuffed all their advances, they tried to rape him. And several instances of minor-league gay and lesbian harassment in the service, in civilian life, and at seminary. <br /> I haven't personally had the pleasure of some gay dude trying to beat me up, but my car wasn't so lucky when its tires were slashed during the Prop 8 campaign.<br /><br />"murdered"-- what about the case of the Chicago woman who was murdered by the gay couple because they were upset by her lack of approval of their "lifestyle?" Didn't make the media outside of some of the conservative Catholic press back in the mid-90s.<br /><br />"despised by their society"-- check out Miss California USA's current travails.<br /><br />"ostracized by their church"-- in some of the more malevolent provinces of some Catholic Church religious orders, straights indeed face that difficulty. Never mind the fun times we conservative Catholic clergy have at local clergy association meetings we have to attend from time-to-time. My own group has a lesbian in charge who wouldn't give a RC priest the time of day.<br /><br />So instead of dealing with an imagined one-sided pogram, why don't we look for the real problem: the existence of bullies who take advantage of perceived weaknesses (like age, race, sex, sexual orientations, and others) in order to infliect physical violence upon another.<br /><br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-36671483479996911422009-04-25T17:36:00.000-05:002009-04-25T17:36:00.000-05:00Re. the NJ case: the church received hundreds o t...Re. the NJ case: the church received hundreds o thousands of taxpayer dollars to maintain the pavilion with the proviso that they give the public access. They were not given right of refusal, because they agreed by taking the dollars that the building became available to the public. It was no longer religious, once the public gave the money to it.<br /><br />Gays are part of the public. <br /><br />RE. the photographer: no gay marriage about it, as there IS NO GAY MARRIAGE IN NEW MEXICO. He fell afoul of state laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating. <br /><br />Re. the IVF doctor: she has no problem performing IVF except on lesbians. Again, California found that under state anti-discrimination law, she is not allowed to deny gays treatment any more than she is allowed to deny blacks treatment. LIke it or not, those are the laws under which she is licensed.<br /><br />NONE of these cases have anything to do with "gay marriage". They ALL have to do with protection of gays under anti-discrimination laws. That's what this is about: the religious conservatives want us to have no protections under law, and they want to be free to discrimnate. So the test is, replace "gay" with "black" or even "Christian" and see whether your view of these cases changes?<br /><br /><br />Please go <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20" REL="nofollow">here</A> for more.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-40333737893258266402009-04-24T22:32:00.000-05:002009-04-24T22:32:00.000-05:00My emotional response is that we should all do our...<I>My emotional response is that we should all do our bit to raise the generation that is going to pay our pensions. I also hope they'll be schooled enough to provide medical care when I'm in an old people's home, or to make sure my family can still communicate with me however long distance they may be.<br />I don't expect their parents to bear all that burden, especially as I intend to profit from a large chunk of their adult productivity.</I>Precisely, Erika.<br /><br />Though, in the US, pensions from the tax base seem increasingly unreliable.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-8438065653218477592009-04-24T14:44:00.000-05:002009-04-24T14:44:00.000-05:00Thanks, Erika, on both counts.
As to Jesus, he ap...Thanks, Erika, on both counts.<br /><br />As to Jesus, he appears to me to be condemning the <I>tu quoque</I>, not endorsing it.<br /><br />For my part, I am not condemning NOM or anyone else in this case, but wondering aloud why it is that their response is, it appears to me, out of proportion to the real concern or threat. They would, I think, gain more by a more measured statement than the language of "storms" and oppression. And, pardon me, Phil, but I don't see that the issue is any different than the race issue when it comes to practice: people had real concerns about property values when laws insisted that discrimination on the basis of race in provision of houseing was illegal. The concerns were real, but they came as the fruit of racism. I think the same can be said here: the concern that a child will be taught something with which one disagrees is real; but it is also the reality that same-sex marriage exists, and will become more common as time goes on. Being offended at learning about it will not really get one very far. <br /><br />Part of living in a pluralistic society means recognizing that people will have freedoms to do thing with which one may disagree. And these things do have real impact on people's lives. But the impact, in and of itself, is no argument against the change. That is just "I don't like it so it ought not to be." The likes and dislikes of any majority cannot infringe the rights of a minority; and more and more entities are coming to see marriage as a fundamental human right, whether one is offended by that or not.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-39755254930699374082009-04-24T14:26:00.000-05:002009-04-24T14:26:00.000-05:00Also (Tobias, don't print this if it goes too far ...Also (Tobias, don't print this if it goes too far off topic!), I find the statement that "If tu quoque is OK for Him, it ought to be for us" almost blasphemous.<br /><br />When we speak in Jesus' name we do so with great care and trembling, knowing that his words are always aimed primarily at us and are not to be taken as license for us to use them against others.<br /><br />What is good enough for Him is rarely ever good enough for us - particularly when it's all about condemning the perceived sins of others!Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-69766925622964854842009-04-24T14:22:00.000-05:002009-04-24T14:22:00.000-05:00This is probably not the right thread to challenge...This is probably not the right thread to challenge Phil's comment that "Or, is it just a case of, "I suffered, so good for them if they suffer, too?.<br /><br />But without wanting to get into a game of "my suffering is worse than yours", I would nevertheless like to ask Phil whether he really feels he is comparing like with like here.<br /><br />To my knowledge, no-one has ever been beaten up for being heterosexual, murdered, thrown out of their families, dispised by their society and been ostracised by their church. No-one, to my knowledge, has ever been pushed to suicide for being straight.<br /><br />I accept that some straights feel beleagured and afraid that the world as we know it will end tomorrow if we allow committed, stable, loving relationships between gays, and that their fears for the future are genuine.<br /><br />But to call that suffering is a little bit much, no?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-71174305829071499272009-04-24T13:11:00.000-05:002009-04-24T13:11:00.000-05:00Phil, I will leave it to others to weigh what you ...Phil, I will leave it to others to weigh what you say here. At least this is a cogent presentation of your position and not a mere reaction.<br /><br />However, this is the first time I mentioned the IVF case -- I didn't say it was a misrepresentation previously (I didn't say that all of the statements in the NOM ad were false) but I don't know that it is true, either. What I do know is that the courts found against the doctor, and that the case didn't involve same-sex marriage, but providing artificial insemination to a woman. (Does this person insist, as part of her faith tradition, that all of her IVF patients be married? Or that the sperm donated come from the husband?) I don't know. Does anyone else?<br /><br />And what will you do when the majority of Americans come to accept same-sex marriage, which I am confident will happen within a generation?Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75258268801209187232009-04-24T12:49:00.000-05:002009-04-24T12:49:00.000-05:00OK, Tobias. I think there are examples here of yo...OK, Tobias. I think there are examples here of your sympathizers appearing to get exempted from the rule, but fair enough. On the other hand, us both being Christians, you being a priest and this being, to a large extent, a Christian-themed blog, I thought my point was relevant, inasmuch as Our Lord told us, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." If <I>tu quoque</I> is OK for Him, it ought to be for us.<br /><br />Taking your statements in turn, it isn't obvious to me the New Jersey church group is saying something "objectively misleading and false." We would have to know, for example, if they've been permitted, in the past, to refuse accommodation to particular groups. Additionally, they might be strongly convinced because of the particulars of their interaction with the government that the fact of same-sex marriage was the driving reason that they were raked over the coals by officials this time, when objections were not raised in the past, only to see the rationale you give used after the fact to justify the action.<br /><br />On the IVF case, you now say you can't say it is being misrepresented.<br /><br />On the photographer case, I've looked through the thread and see nowhere that gender as the basis of refusing the job was mentioned, by David or anyone else. I may have missed it. The objection, though, is to the gay marriage aspect of it; surely you don't deny that?<br /><br />Finally, your example of blacks in a restaurant is in no way analogous to my example. It is, once again, employing an assumption that I, and, on the evidence, the majority of Americans do not accept.<br /><br />I'll respond to your thesis directly: while it may be true of some (as it will be for any group), your opponents are not irrational, fearful in the hysterical way you seem to be using the word, or loathing. They think homosexual behavior is immoral and that marriage is uniquely constituted by one man and one woman; they think it will be damaging to our society to accept any contrary rule; and, being in the majority, they are angry at the possibility that the opposite will be taught to their children and used to damage their livelihoods, careers and/or social acceptability. As these are the same outcomes gays have fought for so long to avoid for their own lives, why do you disparage those with the same concerns? Or, is it just a case of, "I suffered, so good for them if they suffer, too?" If so, that sounds to me like not only loathing, but a special flavor of <I>tu quoque</I> of your own.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-10664582201154065042009-04-24T11:55:00.000-05:002009-04-24T11:55:00.000-05:00Phil,
As I make clear in the text that appears imm...Phil,<br />As I make clear in the text that appears immediately above the box in which comments are made, I ask that people avoid mere contradiction or assertion, and stay with the thread. Your post did not actually respond to my thesis, but merely engaged -- as you continue to do here -- in the logical fallacy <I>tu quoque</I> ("you're just as bad"). It does nothing to address the actual content of what I said in my post.<br /><br />Contrary to your assertions here, my accusation of lying is not based on my point of view, but on objective fact. There are several false and misleading statements in the NOM advertisement. <br /><br />The NJ church group is not being oppressed for their opinions on same-sex marriage. The actor says, "I'm part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage." This is designed to give the impression that a church is being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, and is being punished for not doing so. In fact, it is about the refusal of a church-related entity refusing to rent a public hall (not a religious building), restored in part at public cost, for a private function involving a same-sex couple. The statement in the video is objectively misleading and false.<br /><br />I don't know as much about the case of the IVF doctor, but the actor claims it was an issue of "faith vs job." Not knowing the details, I won't say this is a lie -- but I wonder what faith tradition she is referring to, since IVF itself is viewed at least by some faith traditions as a moral violation. And should those faith traditions have the right to put her out of business?<br /><br />The case of the photographer doesn't even appear in the video from NOM, so I don't know why it keeps cropping up.<br /><br />As to whether things involve "behavior" you might just as well believe that saying "it isn't blacks I'm opposed to, it's just their sitting in my restaurant" is a defense against discrimination.<br /><br />As David has pointed out, the mistake the photographer made was in saying he refused to provide a service on the basis of the gender of the couple. The law in that state, as the court found, forbids such discrimination. I understand the case is on appeal, and may yet be reversed.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-91443804589596628112009-04-24T11:12:00.000-05:002009-04-24T11:12:00.000-05:00I'm disappointed, Tobias, that you simply choose t...I'm disappointed, Tobias, that you simply choose to delete comments that cut exactly against your thesis. Let me try again: from Perez Hilton to this very thread and across the universe of similar blogs, there is ample "fear, loathing and lying" from your side of the aisle - therefore, you have very little room to be criticizing others on that score. (For those who would like something more than assertion, that level of specificity is, apparently, disallowed.)<br /><br />You're happy to accuse those who disagree with you of lying, when the truth is, their views are only false based on your assumptions, assumptions your opponents do not share. For example, it is false, to most people, that a desire not to, say, photograph a gay union ceremony, has anything to do with "discrimination" or "civil rights" as the terms are commonly understood. The objection is to the <I>behavior</I> necessarily involved, which makes it a moral issue. On this reading, this is no different than the photographer not wanting to shoot even the clean part of a man's evening with a prostitute, or a shopkeeper not wanting loud, cursing youths in her store. As I'm sure you understand this distinction, even as you fail to acknowledge it in your criticism, does that make you dishonest, as you happily label others?Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-90480755479195197752009-04-24T11:05:00.000-05:002009-04-24T11:05:00.000-05:00Thank you, Peshat. I agree with almost everything ...Thank you, Peshat. I agree with almost everything you say here. As you will see if you read my book, I take a very careful and Scriptural approach -- a "close reading" -- to address the concerns. I don't think you know me at all well in your judgment concerning my alleged "predisposition" on anything at all. I make every effort to apply the hermeneutic of suspicion to my own views first before I apply it to others.<br /><br />I think the evidence shows a considerable broadening of negativity towards same-sexuality in the post-Apostolic era, and far from being monolithic thereafter, has waffled considerably. The Scriptures themselves, as I demonstrate say very little on the subject at all. And what Scripture does say has been pushed far too far. That is part of the problem I address.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75991407630151186422009-04-24T09:50:00.000-05:002009-04-24T09:50:00.000-05:00Tobias (and Erika!),
Perhaps most of us do let ou...Tobias (and Erika!),<br /><br />Perhaps most of us do let our predispositions and presuppositions govern our interpretation of Scripture. That doesn't mean any of us should. Certain conservatives push homophobic agendas far past the biblical evidence; liberals, likewise, push their own homophilic agendas (which they then proclaim as "prophetic"). I happen to believe this is due to the Spirit of the Age and not the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />I try my best NOT to do that. As a result, I have looked at a great deal of evidence pro and con in the homosexuality debate. Clearly, since it is bucking a couple thousand years of church tradition, the pro-homosexuality side has the burden of proof. I don't think it has borne that burden. Still, I'd be more than glad to look at anything you have written, Tobias. <br /><br />I did grow up, more or less, with the notion that homosexuality was wrong...though I don't remember it being overtly stated. I grew up in a liberal denomination, and I remember no teaching against homosexuality. I have had nothing but positive experiences with gay friends, colleagues, and students. I am terribly concerned that our churches be welcoming to gays and lesbians; that we fight for a huge increase in spending to counteract AIDS around the globe; that we work hard to alleviate issues of drug dependency, domestic violence, depression, and suicide in our GLBT communities; and that we strive for equal access and opportunity in housing and employment. I'm sure I have some residual homophobic tendencies, but they're sure not pronounced...and I will continue to do my utmost to rid myself of them. Nonetheless, I still believe the conservatives to be basically correct in their interpretation of the relevant Scriptures. (Let me repeat, however, that they have pushed their arguments way too far on occasion.)<br /><br />I am predisposed to accept women's ordination. My grandmother was a preacher. And of all the people I have met in this lifetime, she would be in the top 5 of those I most admire. Again, I have had mostly GOOD experiences with women pastors. When I go to Scripture, however, I remain unconvinced by the advocates of WO. Pure and simple, their arguments are weak, sometimes downright irrational. Emotionally, I have pushed back and have (tentatively) convinced myself that at the very least, ordination to the diaconate is alright, and possibly to a position of assistant pastor/rector. But I am well aware of my subjectivity.<br /><br />I am personally (very) against capital punishment. I very much wish Scripture were, too. But it is not. At the most, I can garner that there is no NT <I>mandate</I> for it, and thus a democratic society can rid itself of it if it so desires.<br /><br />I am personally aghast at the notion of "eternal, conscious torment" for those condemned to hell. Thankfully, there is at least some biblical evidence for annihilationism...to which I fervently cling! Again, I am excrutiatingly aware of how subjective I am allowing myself to be.<br /><br />I do not at present have an established personal position on credo- vs. paedo- baptism...as I continue to read and read. Similarly, I have not made up my mind on the various eschatological options. I look intensely at Scripture, and I do let it change my mind. <br /><br />If one is truly serious about the authority of Scripture, then one can fight one's presuppositions. I have no clear evidence that you are doing that, Tobias. (But then I admit I don't have much to go on.)<br /><br />As for judicial activism, I admit that it has seemingly accomplished some great things, or at least made it easier for great things to be accomplished. I do not stand in opposition to Brown v. Board of Education...but I do believe that the Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were the better route to take. (In a good many senses, "Brown" merely affirmed the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment and cannot be seen as true activism.) Laws against miscegenation were on their way out anyway, but I do not grieve their more hasty demise. <br /><br />The problem with activism is that it cuts both ways. Few liberals like the conservative activism on display in Bush v. Gore, for example. Some of the decisions running against affirmative action have had tenuous constitutional underpinnings, as well.<br /><br />Conservatives are rightly dismayed that a court can overturn the will of the people as they did in Iowa. If in the future, the majority of the people of Iowa were inclined to vote FOR maintaining gay marriage (and had even changed their constitution to protect it) but were thwarted by an activist conservative state supreme court...there would be a liberal outcry against activist judges (they might even misspeak and say "corrupt"). Judicial activism is undemocratic...no matter which side employs it...no matter how beneficial it is to society in the short run. It is possible to be both LIBERAL and a strict constructionist, you know! (Felix Frankfurter is a case in point: helped to found the ACLU but was a tireless advocate of judicial restraint.)<br /><br />Obviously, there is a difference between correctly interpreting the constitution to nullify a popular law...and actually "legislating from the bench." Activism is when a judge lets his or her subjective opinion stand in the way of sound judicial reasoning. And reasonable people will debate when this actually occurs (usually because of their own strong opinions on the issues in question). <br /><br />Objectively, I believe the Bush v. Gore decision WAS an example of conservative activism. (I happen to think it was beneficial to the country...not in that it gave us George W., but in that it staved off a constitutional crisis. And, of course, would have done so even if it had decided for Gore. In other words, it was beneficial for them to take the case.) Roe v. Wade, likewise, was made up out of whole cloth. Two very poorly reasoned decisions.<br /><br />--PeshatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-74909433586152744192009-04-24T09:23:00.000-05:002009-04-24T09:23:00.000-05:00"My emotional response is that I shouldn't have to..."My emotional response is that I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools or lunches or care programs for children I didn't birth."<br /><br />My emotional response is that we should all do our bit to raise the generation that is going to pay our pensions. I also hope they'll be schooled enough to provide medical care when I'm in an old people's home, or to make sure my family can still communicate with me however long distance they may be.<br />I don't expect their parents to bear all that burden, especially as I intend to profit from a large chunk of their adult productivity.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-6587787582810551772009-04-24T09:22:00.000-05:002009-04-24T09:22:00.000-05:00Thanks for the additional notes. (I'm half Irish, ...Thanks for the additional notes. (I'm half Irish, btw.)<br /><br />FrMichael, your reaction then is wholly subjective, if that's your meaning of corrupt. And your strange understanding of the discrimination laws fails to grasp what discrimination on the basis of sex/gender means. No one redefined marriage in California or Iowa. The courts recognized that restricting access to a public institution on the basis of gender/sex is as wrong as doing so on the basis of race. You disagree with the judges' reading of the law; but that doesn't make them corrupt, except in your subjective view.<br /><br />Mark -- you hit a particular nail quite soundly. This is a matter of equal treatment for all relationships -- and I agree that the society has an interest not in marriage per se, but in those marriages, and other forms of relationship, which stabilize society. Thus I can understand the special tax status for religious communities, schools, churches, and so on. It is part of the social contract that all contribute to social structures from which we may not individually or directly benefit, but which build up society. Contrary to FrM's view that this is corruption, I think same-sex marriage is clearly preferable to relegating same-sex persons to the unprotected cohabitation, or strenuous additional efforts to obtain legal protections (some of which are unavailable no matter how hard they try).Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-71931873155908378192009-04-24T05:50:00.000-05:002009-04-24T05:50:00.000-05:00Peshat ... If by "spell it out" you mean post some...Peshat ... If by "spell it out" you mean post some factual information, the answer is yes. <br /><br />BTW, the same goes for you.Mike in Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324396563818549026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-73653536973869720512009-04-23T22:31:00.000-05:002009-04-23T22:31:00.000-05:00As to activist consevative courts, I would be agai...As to activist consevative courts, I would be against them if I encountered them in practice. I'm much more of a strict constructionist in judicial matters than right-wing: all judges should be cautious in straying from straight application of existing laws.<br /><br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com