Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

Yes, the Salem example was a bit flip, but if you look at Christian theocracies in general they haven’t worked out very well for women, non-whites, and non-Christians. Christian governments, both Protestant and Catholic, have put countless people to death for their religious beliefs.

Well, firstly, those Christian “theocracies” you have in mind were not true theocracies since almost all of them were ruled by secular governments working in concert with the Church. That arrangement created a lot of room for corruption that may not have existed in a true theocracy. As for the treatment of women, minorities, etc., that certainly was not a feature of the theocracy, it was a feature of all humankind. Women’s rights were never what they are today. They are quite a novelty compared with human history. And minorities have quite frequently been abused in society, whether Christian theocratic societies or Arabic, Jewish, or even atheist. I don’t think you have a valid point here. Were we to combine all the people murdered by Church-led societies, and then compared this figure with the total number of people murdered by secular governments, it would look as if the Church-led governments were angelic. The number of people murdered during the Soviet genocide alone would completely dwarf anything that happened during the Catholic Inquisitions. The Nazi led governments would completely dwarf anything that happened in Salem, MA. And we haven’t even yet mentioned the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of children who are being murdered via abortion all across the world within non-Church led governments.</p>

<p>Shoot. Slavery was actually ended because of the direct influence of Christianity, and I suppose it is for that reason I feel a personal gratitude to the faith for being sensitive enough to declare my own worth in God’s sight. It is true that some Christians have erred. Christians are human, and as Ted Haggard has recently shown, humans make mistakes. But we really need to put a cap on this notion that Christianity is the bane of human freedom. Before it came along, women in the middle east were subject to polygamous marriages, utter abandonment by their husbands for hardly any reason at all, and they had no say in their governments. It was Christianity that declared that a man could not abandon his wife for just any reason (yes, there was a Jewish school of thought that agreed with the Church, but it certainly did not prevail until the Church was established). It was Christianity that said women and men were equal in value, but different in roles. Christianity actually declared that a wife had ownership of her husband. Such an idea simply did not exist prior to the religion.</p>

<p>I do not advocate a Christian theology. But I do advocate a free functioning of religion in America, including the right of people to speak their mind on anything without threat of a government invoice. (LOL. That’ll be $6,743,494 for one endorsement of an American politician. Thanks for your business!)</p>

[conyat]

<p>You’re wrong that churches are required to apply for tax-exempt status. No one is forcing them not to pay taxes. You have to wonder why they have such a horror of it, given that Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar and made it clear that he Himself was a spiritual rather than a political messiah. If pastors want to use their pulpits to make political commercials, they should pay taxes like any other commercial enterprise. </p>

<p>On the issue of slavery, it’s also fair to say that slavery was perpetuated and endorsed by Christianity. Had our Founding Fathers established a Christian theocracy in this country, we may well still have had slavery today. The denomination that began the abolutionist movement was a fringe group, the Anabaptists, that wouldn’t have been allowed to oppose the teachings of the Founding Father’s mainstream denominations. At one point clergy in the US were teaching that it was a serious sin to help a slave escape and preaching that slaves had a religious obligation to obey their God-given masters. Some of the folks calling for Christian theocracy in the US are already calling for a return to legalized slavery and for the execution of Wiccans and homosexuals.</p>

<p>

Such an idea simply did not exist prior to the religion.

</p>

<p>Only if you accept the premise that only the ideas of Judeo-Christians are important enough to be considered as having “existed.” (ETA: Also, it’s not true either that “all humankind” treated women badly. You really should read some ethnography before making these kinds of sweeping statements.)</p>

<p>What’s interesting about the abortion debate is that many in the pro-life camp have given tacit support to government-forced abortions. China still practices forced abortion, and not only is the right-wing willing to accept billions in loans from China, we will be transferring wealth in the form of interest payments back to China for generations. </p>

<p>The moral thing to do would be not to rely on a country with forced abortions to prop up our economy, and not fund them doing it via the profit they make from us on loans. The pro-life camp also did nothing to denounce forced abortions and virtual slavery in the North Mariana islands. Worse, they fired the government official who was trying to investigate it, at the behest of powerful lobbyist Abramoff.</p>

<p>I’ll have an easier time believing that prominent pro-lifers are really against abortion and not just against women being able to make the decision, when they call on our government to stop accepting money from China, even if it ends up hitting them in the wallet.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Another excellent post by Conyat.</p>

<p>Hypocrisy is so interesting, isn’t it?</p>

[conyat]

<p>Thanks Allmusic. You write great posts too.</p>

<p>I suppose I should clarify that I don’t think most pro-lifers have really thought through the moral implications of accepting loans from China and supressing efforts to improve conditions in the North Marianas. But I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the leaders of their movements are very aware of the implications of these policies.</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>Altogether now, and this time with feeling…Onward Christian soldiers , marching as to war.</p>

<p>Dross, it’s like you are looking at history through some sort of Christian kaleidoscope. If y’all want to get together a couple of mega-churches and go on a worldwide crusade against the heathens, just call it that and get after it but I wouldn’t try it here at home. Things would get …uhhh…let’s just call it “messy”. ;)</p>

[hereshoping]

<p><<some of=“” the=“” folks=“” calling=“” for=“” christian=“” theocracy=“” in=“” u.s.=“” are=“” already=“” a=“” return=“” to=“” legalized=“” slavery=“” and=“” execution=“” wiccans=“” homosexuals.=“”>></some></p>

<p>Gosh, I had no idea; in fact, I had read that the United States military has accepted Wiccan as an established religion. And that return to legalized slavery thing is really scary. Executing homosexuals? Scary stuff. Could we have a link to your source for your statement above, please?</p>

[logosprincipal]

<p>While the debate always rages over whether it’s better to try to engage or to isolate an offending country, I’m not aware of evangelical leaders calling out for greater engagement with China, but have heard just the opposite from many. Can you provide more information on these evangelical leaders who are supporting our financial relationship with China, conyat?</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>I probably haven’t followed this as carefully as some of you, but a couple of thoughts have occurred to me.</p>

<p>Churches are non-profit organizations. The money that people donate to churches has already been taxed – “unto Caesar” and all that. Why should those same dollars be taxed again? Aren’t non-profits specifically exempted from certain taxes, regardless of their purpose? I work for a non-profit – we don’t pay sales tax, although there are employement taxes etc.</p>

<p>Regarding pro-life and China – personally, I say let’s get our own house in order before we start imposing sanctions on other countries. When the Supreme Court is currently debating whether it is more humane to kill a late term fetus before it is evacuated or at the point of delivery, how can we point fingers at other counties’ policies? <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/washington/09scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/washington/09scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;

Justice Kennedy responded: “Well, but there is a risk if the uterine wall is compromised by cancer or some forms of pre-eclampsia and it’s very thin. There’s a risk of being punctured.” </p>

<p>His comment reflected arguments that the doctors challenging the law have made. They say that “partial-birth abortion” — known medically as both “intact dilation and evacuation” and “D and X,” for dilation and extraction — is often safer because the removal of an intact fetus avoids injury to the uterus. The more common method of second-trimester abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered, can leave behind bone fragments.

</p>

<p>I will never understand how a “civilized” society can debate the best merits to kill a human fetus, many of whom could survive outside the womb if simply delivered. We worry so much about torture on these threads – waterboarding, for example, which does not leave any lasting harm. How can we expend so much concern about adults whose behavior has gotten them into a particular situation and do nothing to stop the annihilation of the most innocent among us? I’ll never get it.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>‘outlaw’ - sorry I didn’t answer your earlier question - I was referring to the fundamentalists (see, I use that word to distinguish from Christians in general) trying to keep gays from marrying. OK, wrong choice of words, since you can’t outlaw something that isn’t legal to begin with. But I think you should be able to discern my point - that they are against homosexuality because they think gays are condemned to ‘hell’ - yet Jesus never said anything about gays being condemned, and he DID imply that most wealthy people won’t get to ‘heaven’ so why don’t the fundamentalists go after those congregations in the huge, extravagant churches?</p>

<p>What irks me is that they insist that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Scientists are still trying to figure out the causes of homosexuality, but so far it doesn’t seem to be a choice. I have a friend with 5 boys, all raised the same way - their dad is a typical ‘male’ - likes to tinker with cars, etc. 4 of the boys were typical rowdy boys as children (they are my neighbors so I’ve known them since the kids were little) but the oldest one was sewing doll clothes at age 9. I suspected he was gay even back then, not just because of his choice of activities but because of his mannerisms and inclinations. They are Christian so had a very hard time accepting his orientation, but thankfully they did accept him with love. Last I heard, they were trying to ‘heal’ him of it, but I don’t know how successful that will be.</p>

<p>Opinions about homosexuality range from thinking it is just a variation of normal to thinking that it is a ‘sin.’ Some people in the middle of that range think it is an aberration or perhaps an imbalance of some sort (such as a hormonal imbalance perhaps).</p>

<p>Like the abortion issue, until science is able to conclusively state the reasons approximately 10% of the population is oriented toward the same sex, we should have an open mind as to the causes of homosexuality and not assume that it is a ‘choice.’ Those people should not be ostracized or judged.</p>

<p>Jesus did not judge prostitutes, who sell sex. Many gays are only seeking recognition of their loving, monogamous relationships. I have a hard time believing that Jesus would condemn these people if he were physically here right now.</p>

<p>I also have a hard time believing that Jesus would be willing to promote a war against anyone.</p>

<p>As much as I detest the old testament, the new testament seems to be fairly consistent when it comes to the actual words of Jesus. I still do not accept any book as ‘the word of God’ - it was a history book, imo - but history books do provide us with some sort of record regarding the characteristics of a historical figure.</p>

<p>There are other ancient texts as well, that did not make it into the official bible when Emperor Constantine (Council of Nicea? or something like that) decided which books were the ‘right’ ones. Humans decided this. Nevertheless, if taken together, all those books still depict Jesus as a loving, compassionate, forgiving, and peaceful person.</p>

[golani89]

<p>You detest the old testament?</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>“What you’re missing, Drosselmeier, is that churches’ tax exempt status is a special benefit they have that is not given to other businesses and individuals; it’s basically a subsidy they get from the taxpayers, … The idea of the taxpayers subsidizing these folks to tell their congregants that if they don’t vote for candidate X they are going to Hell is simply not in anyone’s best interests. If they want to do that, they need to give up their subsidy from the public … if you look at Christian theocracies in general they haven’t worked out very well for women, non-whites, and non-Christians. Christian governments, both Protestant and Catholic, have put countless people to death for their religious beliefs…”</p>

<p>Wow, Conyat, very well said!!! I’ve excerpted a few lines above, but I agree emphatically with your entire post. Thanks for saying what I wanted to say, and saying it better!</p>

<p>Historically, there has been more bloodshed because of religious fanaticism than for any other reason. (don’t ask me to quote a reference for that - I don’t remember where I read it.)</p>

<p>I have a brother and a friend who are LDS (Mormon). Interestingly, both were supportive of bush. Yet, if the born-agains got their way, Mormonism would be among the first to go. Mormons are Christians yet the born-agains say they are not Christians. (Unfortunately my brother does not see the irony.)</p>

[golani89]

<p>What do you mean Mormonism would be the first to go?</p>

<p>This is a stupid discussion because Evangelicals will never have a theocracy in America</p>

<p>And could you please explain why you detest the old testament</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>“You need not care about even Jesus’ opinion. The issue concerns why the Church cares. It believes Paul’s writings are authoritative, and Paul condemns homosexuality”</p>

<p>I understand your point and that you are trying to convey why Christianity believes as it does. And that is true, that even caring about Jesus’ opinion is a choice.</p>

<p>I guess that’s why I don’t believe in organized religion - because people must conform to a set of beliefs instead of making up their own minds. Yes, I can anticipate your next response: they CHOOSE those set of beliefs. But more often than not, that choice is based on either brainwashing since birth (like what happened to me) or FEAR (the fear of going to ‘hell’).</p>

<p>Organized religion does have a lot of good - I will concede that - but there is also a grand opportunity to exploit and control others. </p>

<p>I would like to also clarify that I am NOT against faith - there is a difference between religious and spiritual - and I agree that these are all just my own opinions so don’t count for much. I am just expressing them. I respect the right of others to be religious, just like I respect their right to eat junk food and not exercise or whatever.</p>

<p>“It ought to be the right even of Church leaders.”</p>

<p>See Conyat’s posts for my response to this. Of course church leaders can vote as they wish - they have the same rights as any of us. It is the leading of the flock that is in question. See Conyat’s posts - no need to repeat what s/he has said so well.</p>

<p>“According to the system I have tried to explain, Jesus condemns homosexuality because he loves and fulfills the Old Testament law. That law condemns homosexuality, and the condemnation continues to this day through the New Testament.”</p>

<p>Whoa, no way!! OK, I must vehemently disagree. By that logic, then Jesus would also be in favor of war, and blood sacrifice, and stoning, and myriad other despicable practices supposedly imposed by ‘God’ in the old testament. (I often wonder if some alien landed on Earth and was so powerful that the primitive people just thought he was ‘God’ much in the same way any primitive person might wonder if s/he were to see our cars, tvs, and other technological contraptions that s/he would find ‘magical’.)</p>

<p>So, would Jesus embrace the following?</p>

<p>—examples of old testament ‘law’ that I doubt Jesus would approve of------</p>

<p>Dear ‘President’ Bush,</p>

<p>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I
have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose
and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
said, “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman.” I
try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone
tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.</p>

<p>I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God’s Laws and how to follow them.</p>

<ol>
<li>Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.</li>
</ol>

<p>A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians.</p>

<p>Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?</p></li>
<li><p>I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev15: 19-24.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The problem is how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.</p>

<ol>
<li>When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.</li>
</ol>

<p>The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to
them.
Should I smite them?</p>

<ol>
<li>I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death.</li>
</ol>

<p>Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to
do it?</p>

<ol>
<li>A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this?</li>
</ol>

<p>Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?</p>

<ol>
<li>Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.</li>
</ol>

<p>Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die?</p></li>
<li><p>I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?</p></li>
<li><p>My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).</p></li>
</ol>

<p>He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.</p>

<p>Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16.</p>

<p>Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we
do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)</p>

<p>I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and
unchanging.</p>

[golani89]

<p>Its difficult to look at the old testament without examining the oral law-or talmud, mishnah, midrash concurrently. The latter are sort of a “translation” of the old testament, otherwise the old testament does not mean much. I think you would be pleasantly suprised if you started to learn about the old testament more in depth. Its a facinating subject, but very difficult. Look into it.</p>

<p>I do not know as much about it is I would like to, but let me offer an example to the best of my knowledge.
You quote the issue of slavery in your last post.</p>

<p>Do you know the way those slaves are to be treated. Do you know that they are to be let go after a certain period of time. Do you know that eventually slavery was abolished in a procedure given in the old testament and oral laws? Again I want to say tis a fascinating subject. Makes for a very interesting read.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>I detest the old testament because it advocates violence, pure and simple. See above old testament quotes for some examples. Other examples include the so-called commandments by ‘God’ for the Israelites to annihilate their enemies, including all women and children. And, if you were to read the book of Leviticus without knowing it came from ‘God’ you would think it a description of a satanic mass - complete with ritual and blood sacrifice. Also, all the stuff about God’s ‘chosen few’ smacks of bigotry and elitism.</p>

<p>Yes, I find it highly offensive. And others might also if they could actually read it with an open mind instead of blindly accepting that it is from God. Humans wrote it. Humans said it was from God. Humans make mistakes.</p>

<p>I believe God exists inside each of us. I trust the living spirit, not some book that goes against the basic concepts of love, which (in my belief) is what God is all about.</p>

<p>Yes, I am ‘choosing’ to believe that God is about love. That is my choice. But my point is that the old testament has a lot of nasty stuff in it.</p>

<p>And, btw, I HAVE studied the old testament in depth. I was a born-again Christian for several years and during that time I regularly attended a very rigorous bible study in which we looked up words in the orignal Greek & Hebrew, using a concordance. So we studied it on both the superficial level and on a deeper level.</p>

[golani89]

<p>The problem with how you read the old testament is your approach. Read my last post. Becaus you cannot come in to reading the old testament like you would read the da vinci code. </p>

<p>It is important to understand the context of anhilating women and children. For example did you know that the Amaleks-including women and children were all enemies of the israelites, that they all fought them.</p>

<p>I personally find it highly enlightening and by the way i am not christian, but jewish</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>so since we are using the christian bible as a reference on marriage- any one know what it says regarding marriages between races &/or religion?</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>“As for the treatment of women, minorities, etc., that certainly was not a feature of the theocracy, it was a feature of all humankind. Women’s rights were never what they are today.”</p>

<p>Not true. Read ‘The Chalice and the Blade’ (among others) that make a great case that it is the patriarchal societies in relatively recent times that have been responsible for war and oppression. </p>

<p>From a review on amazon.com:</p>

<p>“…The Chalice and the Blade describes idyllic, Goddess-worshipping societies that Eisler believes existed several thousand years ago in eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean. She presents images of agrarian villages that had no defensive fortifications because there was no war. The communities were non-violent and egalitarian. There was no hierarchy and no sexism. There was no class system or great disparities of wealth. The people were deeply spiritual and practiced free love. They were profoundly connected to the natural world. Eventually, however, aggressive warrior nomads from the east (patriarchal peoples who worshipped male sky gods) destroyed these peaceful, Goddess-worshipping communities. The warrior nomads killed the men, raped the women, and took the children as slaves. The Goddess was suppressed and the patriarchy has ruled ever since…”</p>

<hr>

<p>“…And minorities have quite frequently been abused in society, whether Christian theocratic societies or Arabic, Jewish, or even atheist. …Were we to combine all the people murdered by Church-led societies, and then compared this figure with the total number of people murdered by secular governments, it would look as if the Church-led governments were angelic.”</p>

<p>I will attempt again to convey my point. I am NOT saying that it is only Christianity who is responsible for war and oppression. I use Christianity as an example because that is the dominant religion in our society. Obviously, the radical elements exist in Islam to an even greater degree right now. (Interestingly, both religions have the old testament as their base, right?)</p>

<p>My point is that, at the higher levels of organization, religion and politics have a lot in common. It is the hierarchial structure, the CONTROL of the masses, that I am against, whether that is accomplished thru religion or government.</p>

<p>In other words, any small group of people controlling a large group of people is the same. It’s oppressive. </p>

<p>Democracy is SUPPOSED to be government FOR the people BY the people. Yet corruption exists in every style of government. The principles may be sound but somehow those who seek power seem to find a way to get it, within whichever system they find themselves, whether it is a church or a govt.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>“did you know that the Amaleks-including women and children were all enemies of the israelites, that they all fought them.”</p>

<p>How can children be enemies? </p>

<p>See, that is my point. It is this very idea of an entire group of people being labeled the ‘enemy’ that is so offensive.</p>

<p>Wars are fought by political leaders, not by citizens. Political leaders enlist citizens to do their dirty work, and brainwash them into thinking that innocent children, just by being born into a certain ethnicity or nationality, are somehow ‘enemies.’</p>

<p>How barbaric.</p>

[golani89]

<p>Islam rejects all of the things in the old testament. I would not consider the old testament Islam’s base</p>