Same-Sex Marriages Erode Religious Freedoms

[gbjj]

This is very frustrating to see this happening and to know our president elect is so focused on moving forward with this agenda.....

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007649.cfm

Same-Sex 'Marriages' Erode Religious Freedoms

by Jennifer Mesko, editor

'California's judicially imposed social experiment has hastened the demise of religious freedom across the U.S.'

As same-sex couples line up to get "married" in California today, religious groups across the nation are preparing for more of their rights to be trampled.

"What most trusting Americans fail to grasp is the correlation between the advancement of the homosexual agenda and the gradual erosion of our religious liberty," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

"California's judicially imposed social experiment in marriage has hastened the demise of religious freedom across the U.S."

Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer in New Mexico, has already seen her First Amendment rights set aside, in favor of gay "rights."

Earlier this year, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin guilty of discrimination and fined her company more than $6,600 after she refused to photograph a same-sex "commitment ceremony."

Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, is representing Huguenin and her husband, Jon. He said businesses and charities should not be forced to endorse something they don't believe.

"It's compelled speech," Lorence told NPR. "You're using the arm of the government (to) punish people for disagreeing with you."

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, told NPR the outlook is grim for religious groups.

"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so'? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asked.

After Massachusetts legalized gay "marriage," a Boston Catholic charity dropped its adoption services, rather than violate its beliefs by placing children with same-sex couples.

In New Jersey, the arrival of civil unions led almost immediately to a church losing part of its tax-exempt status for refusing to allow a lesbian "commitment ceremony" to take place on church property.

"If the ultimate result of gay 'marriage' and other items on the homosexual agenda is that pastors and believers can be prosecuted and silenced," Hausknecht said, "then we have truly lost the religious freedoms that this country was founded upon."

[revwally]

This has already happened in what was originally religious based web dating service -- e harmony. see http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335280,00.asp

Some of us clergy are unsure of the repercussions. My denomination is debating issues on homosexuality. If a portion of the denomination decides that it can/does endorse "homosexual marriage" (which I disagree with), does it open the rest of us to lawsuits over "discrimination"?

In my ministry I have refused 2 weddings. Because it was based on issues in Counseling, I am not at liberty to say why -- but under certain restriction could by court order. I foresee that there will be lawsuits forcing the issue against particular pastors/churches/denominations etc.

wally
(saw a spelling correction needed and edited)

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi all,

I'm of an age where I've seen a lot of social changes and have had a chance to develop some perspective.

When I was young, back in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, there was much debate about racial integration of the schools. In those days, public schools were segregated. That is, there were schools for whites and schools for blacks. These schools were supposed to be separate but equal, but in reality, they were anything but equal.

I remember hearing white people saying that they should not be "forced" to associate with "colored," the then-polite term for African-Americans. It was said that such "forced association" would lead to "miscegenation," and "mongrelization"or mixing of the races and that the law could not legislate who you chose to associate with. It was said that people should "stick to their own kind."

Many Christian denominations of the time felt that such "race mixing" was contrary to the teachings of the Bible and quoted lots of verses to prove it. Currently, most Christian groups do not hold these views, but such views were quite common not so long ago. For those young Christians here on this forum who are opposed to racism and discrimination, this might seem astounding. But it is well within my personal lifetime.

To get a flavor of how they sounded, you can look at an article called The Bible and Race (http://www.heretical.com/mkilliam/biblrace.html) by Kenneth McKilliam. or Why We Hate Jews, Race Mixing (http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/WhyWeHateJews5.htm), by Pastor Mark Downey.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

These tracts sound like what so many Christians openly preached and believed back in the 1940s and 1950s when I was young. Even many Christians whose particular denomination did not teach these doctrines were convinced that miscegenation was evil, a work of the devil, a devious ploy by the devil or by communists to dilute the purity of the white race. To the young Christian people here on this forum, this no doubt sounds quite unbelievable and completely contrary to what their pastors teach today.

But not so long ago, this was quite common, not only in the south, but even many states in the north. Marriage between the races was outlawed in over half the United States, and mixed marriage laws weren't deemed unconstitutional until the Supreme Court overturned them in 1967 in the case of Loving Vs Virginia (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html). From 1913 to 1948, 30 of the 48 states comprising the United States had anti-miscegenation laws, according to this Wikipedia article (http://lovingday.org/map.htm) and Loving Day website (http://lovingday.org/map.htm)

Those who opposed the winds of change felt that antidiscrimination laws violated their right of free association, their privacy, their right to practice their religion, their free speech rights to preach racism and burn crosses on people's lawns.

This was not just something they said for effect. They really, truly, and deeply felt offended and horrified by the thought that the America of yesteryear, dominated by white European culture and identity, white picket fences, white-only churches, white-only schools, and white-only businesses might become the multiracial, multicolored society of today and the future. I knew white people who actually became nauseated at the thought of having to sit in the same restaurant as an African American and eat.

These people could not understand why "colored people" weren't happy just sticking with "their own kind," figuring they must have been "whipped up" into being unhappy by "outside agitators," subversives, and Jews (the common characterization for civil rights activists). They argued that the only reason some "colored" people weren't happy about this situation was that communists or anti-Christians were stirring them up.

But at the basis of it all was was a dark secret, a haunting fear, a nightmarish paranoia, an unspoken but powerful terror that somehow the black man was somehow some kind of sexual predator, sexual athlete, irresistible seducer, evil defiler, who had an ability to stir up some unnatural and corrupting desire among white women. One often heard about needing to protect the "purity" of white women. That's why lynchings so often featured torture by battering the victim's sexual organs or amputating them.


http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif

So, you may be asking yourself if you've read this far, what does this have to do with homosexual marriage and the story referred to at the beginning of this thread?

Here's my take.

Personally, I am a very heterosexual male, happily married for many decades, in a committed and loving relationship with a woman.

And when I hear about how "homosexual marriage" is somehow a danger to the institution of marriage, at first I just cannot understand why it should be. There are lots of homosexuals in my world, and they do not pose the slightest danger to my marriage. But then, I remember the sexual paranoia of yesteryear, the fear of the sexualized black man, which has its echoes in the code words "homosexual agenda." It seems that some are terrified their mates or children will be "recruited" and that this will lead somehow to the extermination of the human race, owing to the inability or unwillingness to reproduce. Perhaps the oversexualized homosexual bogeyman is the modern-day equivalent oversexualized black defiler of southern white womanhood of yesterday.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/avatar20071010C.gif

In light of these considerations, I have a few comments to make about the redoubtable Elaine Huguenin, a New Mexico photographer whom a lesbian couple asked to take photographs of their "commitment ceremony," (note, she was not asked to photograph a "same-sex marriage" but "commitment ceremony").

As I understand it, Ms Huguenin is running a photography business, licensed in New Mexico, and subject to New Mexico laws. No doubt, had she been asked to photograph a Jewish wedding and wrote an email saying "Sorry, I'm a Christian, and I do not photograph Jewish weddings because I do not approve of Jews or their lifestyle," she would be deemed to have violated the law. That's because there are certain classes of people that a business is not allowed to discriminate against in the state of New Mexico. Apparently, one of those classes is homosexuals.

Of course, had Ms Huguenin told the couple "I'm sorry, I am engaged at that time. May I refer you to some other colleagues," she would not have broken the law. But apparently, she did not want to take that out.

Why?

Suppose the couple had been an African-American man and a Scandinavian woman who asked Ms Huguenin to photograph their wedding. Supposing she then said,
"Sorry, my religion forbids miscegenation and I find the whole idea offensive, so I don't want your business. It's against my religion to have miscegenation, and so taking your photos would be forcing me create artwork I find morally reprehensible and against my religion."

No doubt, the great and sovereign state New Mexico's civil rights commission would see that as illegal. The court would throw out her reasoning on the same grounds that a New Mexican landlord cannot refuse to rent to an African American solely on the basis of race.

I hope I don't sound insensitive to my many conservative and Christian brothers and sisters here on this forum, but find it hard to feel sorry for this woman, actually. She seems to either be confrontational or completely insensitive to the reality of America today. She certainly is not the victim of some sort of anti-Christian discrimination.

Addendum

My apologies for this very long post. But we should remember that many homosexuals are very interested in physical fitness and healthy lifestyles, and we need to remember it is quite likely some of our forum brothers and sisters are homosexuals. They need love and acceptance as much as the rest of us do.
Once again, I will be pretty slammed with work, and my ability to make long posts here will be somewhat constrained for a while. Perhaps some will find that a blessing. Nevertheless, I'll try to respond to any comments around Thanksgiving


Best holiday wishes to all.

Regards,

Alan

[DJ]

Alan and Rubberbus,

Two fantastic posts! It's amazing to me that so many people try to find a way to make hatred seem like something other then what it is. I've got a secret for some of you----Gays, heterosexuals, blacks, whites, fat people, skinny people etc. are all people. Unless you share a bedroom with someone folks there is really no way to actually know anyones sexual orientation (and even then.... and who cares?). People are people and until you come to that realization you who harbor hatred are only hurting yourself and missing out on what life is all about.

Once again, Alan and Rubberbus----Bravo!

DJ

[ben alexander]

Alan, Rubberbus, and DJ - you are three wise men, and I loved your posts (especially Alan's, which was very informative!)

Life's too short to harbour grudges, and its never a good idea to develop prejudices. Everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or religion, is different. They may have personal beliefs or lifestyles we disapporve of, but if they are being responsible and are engaging in consensual activity, then so what?

I have gay friends, and they are some of the nicest, most stable, people I know. One couple has been a long term relationship for over 20 years, and recently had a commitment ceremony.

Yet, I have a close friend, who is heterosexual, who is one of the most promiscious people I know. I've seen and heard him hit on (successfully) with women working behind the counter at my local store, at work, and at almost any social gathering.

Once, I asked him if he ever planned to settle down, and he said "Nah! I'm too busy having fun!". Whilst he's my friend, I don't approve of his almost callous approach to picking up women, and his casual, dismissive treatment of them once he's had his "fun".

Do I hate him...no. I don't like what he does, but he has good points, too. He's always been there for me when I'm down, and would sell his possessions to get me out of trouble.

Public stereotype would have us believe that all homosexual and lesbian people are promiscious, and straight people are more stable. Yet, from my own personal experience, the opposite is true.

Let's just judge the person by the goodness in their heart, not their sexual orientation, or skin color.

Ben

[revwally]

some quick thoughts in reply:

1. Alan argues based on the history of racism in the United States. Please note that the anti-racism movement was religious in nature.
On the question of Biblical teaching, I can find no scholar who would argue that the Bible endorses homosexual behavior. There are those that would dismiss or argue against what is in the Bible, but even those in favor of endorsing homosexual behavior are clear that the Bible does not endorse it.
The arguments about race this was not true about.

2. I always find the comments about "association" interesting. The school I graduated from for my BA now has a GLBT graduation, a women's graduation, an African American graduation etc, but no roman catholic graduation, evangelical graduation, men's graduation etc. I don't know what to make of it, but just commenting on it.

3. The subject at hand was religious freedoms.
Presently my church is debating various sexuality issues (as are many denominations). If the church (national) were to decide to allow pastors to perform homosexual marriages -- I would easily foresee lawsuits for those of us who say no to it. Today, lawsuits are also used to intimidate. This can be seen by how fearful many schools are in choosing their music for what is now called a winter concert -- though there is nothing illegal about singing Christmas carols (as well as Hanukkah and Kwanza songs and any other type you want).
one of the two weddings that I have refused to perform in my career was that of a couple where he was black, she white -- they were both divorced -- they had been living together for 12 years and had 3 kids -- they wanted a roman catholic priest to be part of the ceremony (the priest had refused because they were divorced). None of these were the reason that I refused the wedding, though each of these were reasons they gave to others. I could not respond because of confidentiality. In fact, I was ordered by my commander to tell him (I told him it was an illegal order). This had professional and possible legal repercussions for me. It wasn't until the man had tried to seduce someone on duty that others saw other possible reasons for my refusal (and yes, adultery is still illegal in the military).
By the way, I could have refused the wedding for any of these reasons, and have known pastors who have done so. BUT, because lawsuits are used for intimidation, I could easily see a lawsuit coming. The argument is that When I am performing a wedding, I am acting as an official of the state. This is why I sign the paperwork and send it to the state, and why I have to be licensed (or approved) by the state in which I am doing the wedding. SO, the very same argument that Alan used about the photographer, could be used about any pastor.

4. The definition of marriage.
Of the presidential candidates none were in favor of marriage -- though they were in favor of civil unions. This is because more than 4,000 years has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. Polygamy has more of an historical argument in its favor -- are we going to start endorsing that?

5. This redefinition does have repercussions. I believe it is Sweden that has allowed homosexual marriage. In that country the marriage rate has gone down dramatically since that point -- and the number of children born to unwed parents has risen rapidly. While you may argue that that is neither good nor bad (I would respectfully disagree), it has had an effect on the marriages of heterosexual couples. While the effect is not on those who are already married (in general), it is an effect on the meaning and understanding of marriage -- and hence on those who are not yet married.

this is obviously a very sensitive and difficult issue -- and one that is rarely discussed in a logical and caring manner. Often instead of discussion this becomes name calling and other obnoxious behavior -- or with "code-words" that have different meaning to those on the "inside" and those on the "outside". I want to thank Alan for the logical manner in which he has discussed this.

wally

Addendum:
1. Like Alan, I apologize for the long post. While I am not "slammed at work", this is a time I normally would be. I am awaiting my next appointment (job), which will be in January. Until then I have a huge mound of material in my files that I am trying to scan and put on my computer -- while a personal job, it does have a very high priority for me, so my time is precious.

2. Caring about someone is not always endorsing their behavior. Ben cares about his heterosexual friend, but does not endorse his behavior. Friends of mine who are homosexual know the same of me.

[MikeNY]

There is a perverse part of me that wouldn't mind seeing gay people pay alimony!

I have wondered about Jesus's use of the term eunuch in the NT. It appears he is talking about homosexuals. I might be wrong, but that is my personel thought.

Alan it is true the Blacks were horribly disciminated against in the old South. But in the book "Roll Jordan Roll "we read that slaves were treated better than Northern workers. Plus History tells us that due to the Abolistionist Party and thier Politics along with the Republicans that Blacks were historicly treated better than ethnic European Immiragnts before the Civil War right into the Civil Rights Era. Yes black Americans benifited from racism in the North and West and probably to some extent in the South too! Being English speakers they were thought of as "Native Americans" and not as hated as the new Immiragants. We have enshrined that history of favoritism and benifiting from racism now by Law in the USA with Affirmative Action.

In New York Black people could always work on Wall Street for the best businesses, attend the best Colleges and Universites and live in the best areas. Now I know that there were signs in stores in NY "no dogs or italians" and Italians & other Immirgant groups were not allowed to work or atttend schools where Blacks were allowed. There were covenats in deeds not allowing Ethnic Immirgrant groups to even buy property and social control that confined them to the ghetto! All Racism is wrong! All European Immirgants were abused, there is a false tale that people from the UK were treated special; they were brought to the US to be miners and die. Immirgrants were poisoned with Industrial Diseases and Newspapers lauded that just Immirgants and thier children died, not Blacks. That does not mean that Black People did not suffer, just that others also suffered.

God made man equal, it is time to end the evils of Institutional Racism and abolish Affirmative Action by Law.

It is not my intention to hurt anyones feelings. If this post is deleted I understand what I have done as well as the consequences. As an explaination: When I was 12 living in Europe; an older boy chanllenged me to a fist fight. He and his adult friends mistekenly thought I was Spanish from my dark completion and racial insults were used. I was a large 12 and have been boxing for years. I finished off the 15 or 16 year old bully with an uppercut to the stomach. The recieved a gang beating from his older friends. I hate racism.

[revwally]

I have wondered about Jesus's use of the term eunuch in the NT. It appears he is talking about homosexuals. I might be wrong, but that is my personel thought.


Mike,

No, that is not the use of the word. The only reference of Jesus (Mt 19:12) is a reference to those who choose to be single for the sake of the kingdom. Other Biblical references are either:
1. deprived of testes or external genitals -- and hence were put in charge of harems of other countries. (they were also excluded from the Jewish priesthood -- as was anyone with a deformity)
2. Were undistracted (for same reason) and hence one was an official in the court (probably an accountant or one in charge of money).
3. Those who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse in order to devout themselves to prayer and worship.

wally

[MikeNY]

TY Revwally.

[JoeJustice]

I'm switching to Scientology! :hypnotized:

Come.... join me... join me.....

-Joe

[revwally]

sorry, just have a minute before going out.

AF1 and Peacekeeper,

you misunderstand my point -- it was not that we are to become a theocracy, though I would say that the people of the US should live according to their faith.

My point was simply in response to Alan:
Alan was pointing out that the Bible was used in the arguments for discrimination against african americans. My response, as far as the bible was concerned, was two fold -- that the movers and shakers on the other side of that question were using the Bible as well (and pointing out the misuse -- if you want an example PM me), AND that those discussing the theological questions within churches all agree that the bible does not endorse or condone homosexual behavior. It was not a discussion about turning us into a theocracy.

As to the original question take note of the rest of the answer -- questions as to religious freedom (would I be sued for not doing a wedding -- or intimidated by the threat of a suit)...the historical definition of marriage...

secondarily to that are: the results of redefinition...what (if any) redefinitions of marriage will there be next, and what reason is there to preclude any arrangement I might want to call marriage?

I'm late for an important date (Thanksgiving eve service)

wally

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Reverend Wally,

Thanks for your as-usual interesting and thoughtful comments.

I fear I may have given the impression that I regard Christianity as being inherently racist or that I consider the Bible to support racism.

Rather, I think that most of the racists in 19th and 20th century American history sought to justify that racism by couching it in religious terms. A few still do.

Many anti-racist activists and anti-racist leaders likewise framed their struggles for social and racial justice in terms of Christianity and religion. Important figures in this stripe include Martin Luther King, a man now admired by most Christians. I remember in the 1950s and 1960s many thought he was a heretic and not a true Christian. This kind of thinking is no longer common amongst Christians today, but 50 years ago, it was much more common. This web site (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/mlk_jr-exposed.htm)advocates the view that King was a heretic, a communist, a fraud, and a subversive and is typical of popular opinion of the 1950s and 1960s, as I remember that era.

Even then, there were many decent white Christians, even in the south, who disapproved of such soul sickness. The problem was that such whites risked being labeled a "nigger lover." This ugly hate-filled term could strike terror into the heart of a decent white southern Christian, as such people were often ostracized from the community. Often their kids were beaten up at school. They tended to be fired from their jobs, blacklisted as possibly being reds or outside agitators. It took real courage in those days to be a white Christian anti-racist, and there were always good white Christians who joined in the non-violent protests, sit-ins, civil disobedience, etc. They were true American heroes, in my book.

Just as there have always been those who have used religion in general and Christianity in particular to justify ignorance, obscurantism, racism, and social injustice, there have always been Christians who are fighters for social justice.

Reverend Wally, you strike me as being an honest and open religious leader, one who is not dogmatic, one who is trying to do the moral and the right thing. You seem to be open to asking yourself the hard questions. Please do not take my comments as being disrespectful to your religion.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif

I am reminded of a joke that a Christian told me in the 1960s.

One Sunday, a black man arrives in a new city, jobless, with no money, alone. He seeks solace in religion. So after getting off the Greyhound bus, he walks up the street and sees a church. He can hear the congregation singing praises of Jesus. Glad of heart, he approaches the door of the church, but the usher blocks his way in and tells him "we don't allow your kind in here. The colored church is about a 5-mile walk up that dusty road there."

The black man is crestfallen, tired, and hungry. He sits down on the sidewalk at the end of the street, looking longingly at the church, and tears of sadness and rejection spring into his eyes. All of a sudden, he is aware of a presence next to him. He looks up, and it is Jesus, sitting on the curb right next to him, patting him on the shoulder. Jesus says, "Don't feel bad, son. They threw me out too. They haven't let me in that church for years."

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/icons/redbutterfly22.gif

Marriage

You are correct, Reverend, when you imply that I have taken this thread slightly off topic, and for that I apologize, while compounding the sin. :act-up:

You stated that marriage has been defined as a union between opposite sexes for 4000 years. Looking at the rest of your statements on his subject, you seem to share some of the ethos of the so-called Traditional Marriage Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_marriage_movement), as explained in the Wikipedia.

However, as you yourself allude, marriage has not always been seen as a union of one man and one woman. Even in the history of Christian Europe, and certainly in the Bible itself, polygamy has been practiced. Even same-sex marriage was practiced in Europe. Wikipedia tells us that the first recorded instance same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History) in Rome is recorded by the ancient Roman historian Suetonius, and that it was common enough that the Christian Roman emperors Constantius and Constans outlawed same-sex marriages in 342 AD.

In Europe, until recent times, marriage was not based on love. Indeed, too much love in a marriage was thought to be strange, perhaps sinful. The above-cited Wikipedia article states:
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love rarely , and even simple affection was not considered essential.[12] In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin. Stress about the necessity of marriage has historically been a nearly universal source of stress.[13]

Often, marriage historically has not led to our concept of the nuclear family composed of a loving couple. This is a more modern idea. Marriage historically has been much more about property relationships between families who arranged them.

Having said that, same-sex marriage was not uncommon among many Native-American groups, and gender-ambiguous people were often considered shamans in many preliterate societies.

Plato's Symposium talks about love in a way that clearly includes homosexual love. The speech of Aristophanes tells how originally, humans were of three sexes, each being a combination of two people having 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs. These original humans were of 3 sexes, all male, all female, and half-male, half-female, so-called androgynous. At one point, the god Zeus becomes angry at humanity and cuts each of these individuals in half. Ever since, these half-people search the earth for their other half, their soul mates. The result is we have heterosexuals, homosexual men, and homosexual women.

My view is that marriage is essentially a religious institution, and the state should not be involved in marrying people. The legal rights and encumbrances should be defined by a legal contract, subject to secular law, and those wishing to can sanctify their union in the religious tradition of their choosing. This seems to me to be one fair way of resolving the present dilemma.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide3.gif

Finally, I want to acknowledge Reverend Wally's manner of expressing himself.

Reverend, you are a gentleman. You express your views without compromising them in a respectful manner to those of us who hold other views. You seem to recognize that sincere people of good will can hold different opinions and discuss those differences in a civil manner.

Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas to you.



Regards,

Alan

[revwally]

Alan

Thank you.

Nowhere in anything that you have said have I found any disrespect to me or my faith. I believe we have been having a respectful discussion.

Enjoyed your post, as usual. How do you get enough time to do the research you do? You do show both compassion and understanding in your posts. And gee, you even follow the video you recommend elsewhere. ANY ONE WITH THE TIME -- SEE ALAN'S OTHER POST ON A VIDEO TO WATCH ABOUT FORUMS!!!
(following paragraph very far off topic) Presently I am waiting for my next appointment -- which will be in January. Between looking for some kind of work to do -- my wife finding work for me to do around the house -- projects I need to catch up on -- and exercise I don't find the time. Don't know how you do it. I am envious.

A film that I would highly recommend is "Of One Blood". It is the life story of a man in South Africa, who was a strong supporter of Apartheid (on religious grounds -- or so he thought). It may be difficult to find, but is well worth it. The person is now a priest in the South African Episcopal church (sorry can't remember the proper name for it), and is serving in the United States. I heard him speak 4 years ago, it was very powerful (BTW, I believe he is in your neck of the wood Alan).

Another good movie was based on the life of Wilburforce (Amazing Grace). This is about the anti-slavery movement in England.

There was a strong anti-slavery movement in the South prior to the Civil War -- but it was made ineffective by Northerners who came down in support of it -- and in the mess and muddle of "states rights" and economic issues between North and South lost its force. As is true of a lot of issues, it wasn't just one thing -- but mixed in with many others.

After the Civil war, integration was a reality in many places (even in the South). One history book I listened to (I listen to audiobooks while I drive -- since I spend somewhere around 15 hours in a car a week) talked about a Southern (white) senator, who married an African American -- he was from a Southern State, and was re-elected.

I believe it was Cleveland who re-instituted the segregation of the Federal Government offices.
in the 70's I had the privilege of meeting and speaking with one of the last Buffalo Soldiers (Black Soldiers serving in segregated units). He was working with some of the prisoners at a military prison I worked at.

I apologize if this seems to be rambling. I am responding as I go through your commentary.

re: dogmatic. This word has become a pejorative. It has come to mean one who response without thinking. It's root, however, is not that. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...." is a dogma. It is a tenant whereby all others are judged and a lense by which other things are accepted or denied.

For me there is a lens through which I see the world. Each of us has these lenses. Those (like you) who are thoughtful are able to separate out what your lenses are -- and when each is appropriate.

For example. In this discussion, there has been the lens of faith. There has also been the lens of US Citizen. There is the lens of forum member. etc.

The starting topic of this discussion is one of the critical questions that has trouble the US from the beginning -- and hence was placed within the Bill of Rights -- the relationship of church and state.

At the founding of our country the emphasis was on the "establishment" clause -- as restricted to the Federal Government. It was not limited to the States. In fact there were "State religions" within states (I believe Maryland was Roman Catholic, and one of the New England States was officially Congregational.

Today, that same clause has been taken to mean any intermingling of the two -- so that I have heard (often) the argument that someone ought not be a judge who is religious because their religion would "cloud" their judgment. The same would be true on the opposite side. If your dogma (doctrine, lens through which you see the world) is purely naturalistic or materialistic (I know yours is not Alan), that would also prejudge your views.

BTW -- reiterating some of what I said earlier. I like the way that you balance both personal/historic, and the "evidence-based" arguments.

This is gone far afield from the original discussion -- and I apologize for that, as well as the length. Before going downstairs for lifting heavy weights (iron), pushing immovable objects (isos), and moving a weight that is 20+ pounds heavier than it ought to be -- and will gain some more in a few hours at the thanksgiving meal (cals), I will make just a couple more comments:

re: history of marriage. "Love" as we speak of it is something that grew out of the Renaissance period. In much of western civilization, if it were to come about, that would be considered a happy coincidence. Most of what I have seen written about the history of marriage emphasizes the "upper class" -- and doesn't speak to the vast majority of humanity. The little I have seen reflects more of a growing affection between the couple as being a good thing. OTH, we see such things as Song of Solomon (book of the Bible) which is a love poem.

re: Plato/ Symposium (also called Plato's creation myth). Yes, Plato did support this idea of longing. He (as well as many ancient Greek philosophers) believed it was the duty of a man to "school" and teach young boys in the ways of the world. sexuality was one of those -- and they spoke of this being a good thing, because women were not believed to be able to hold an intelligent conversation, worthy of learning.

The case for the Romans is less clear (except of course for the emperor -- but that is another story)

But the main stream of western civilization has been monogamy. I would argue that this is out of the western civilization's lens of looking at the world (at least for the most part) from the Judeo-Christian heritage (that from my lens as an American -- and not from my faith).

Other comment on marriage: When I lived in Germany, I discovered that their tradition was that there was the legal wedding (always done first -- of course) and the religious wedding. That way, those who wanted the service to be a reflection of their faith, did so. I know that this opening a whole nother can of worms, but personally I like that concept.
Within the history of our country -- people out west would regularly "get married", and then do so in church later.

blessings to all this day,

wally

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Reverend Wally,

You wrote:
Other comment on marriage: When I lived in Germany, I discovered that their tradition was that there was the legal wedding (always done first -- of course) and the religious wedding. That way, those who wanted the service to be a reflection of their faith, did so. I know that this opening a whole other can of worms, but personally I like that concept. Within the history of our country -- people out west would regularly "get married", and then do so in church later.

That's sensible. Then a homosexual couple could get the full legal recognition of their marriage. If they wished, they could then have a religious ceremony in one of the denominations that accept gay marriage.

Personally, I do not think I could love another man romantically in the way I love my Margaret. But I do not see anything odd or perverse about a man being able to love another man that way and have the same kind of bonding with his mate. Love is beautiful if it is sincere and non exploitative. As I told my mother when my brother "came out of the closet," revealing his homosexuality to the rest of the family many years ago, it's better for two guys who live together to love each other deeply than for a man and a woman to live together and dislike each other--unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence.

Enjoyed your post, as usual. How do you get enough time to do the research you do? You do show both compassion and understanding in your posts.

Thanks, Wally, for your kind words. I am a pretty old guy, and I have always been interested in the human condition. As such, I have always read and tried to absorb as much as I can of history and human culture.

The Roman playwright Terence said
"Nothing that is human is foreign to me," (humani nihil a me alienum puto),
and Plato, at his trial for atheism and subverting the morals of the youth famously said,
"the unexamined life is not worth living."

These always have been personal mottos for me.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/icons/violets.png

The starting topic of this discussion is one of the critical questions that has trouble the US from the beginning -- and hence was placed within the Bill of Rights -- the relationship of church and state.

At the founding of our country the emphasis was on the "establishment" clause -- as restricted to the Federal Government. It was not limited to the States. In fact there were "State religions" within states (I believe Maryland was Roman Catholic, and one of the New England States was officially Congregational.

True enough, Reverend.

That has been a sticky wicket. It's good to remember that from the very beginning of the United States, many religions have viewed the separation of church and state (to use Jefferson's pithy and accurate description of the constitution's non-establishment clause) as being extremely important for the health and wellbeing of religion. Notable examples are the Baptists and the Quakers. And there have always been some who have sought to place the United States on a religious instead of a secular basis.

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

If your dogma (doctrine, lens through which you see the world) is purely naturalistic or materialistic (I know yours is not Alan), that would also prejudge your views.

Actually, Wally, I am a secular humanist, an atheist, and I have a background in socialist politics. I did go to Jesuit schools in my youth, and I look back at my Catholic school days with some fondness. The priests really loved us boys (in the non-sexual sense, thankfully), and although there are things that were not so great about it, I did get a very good education in history, humanities, languages, etc. So I am not one of those anti religious types, and I recognize the contribution that religion has played in our history and culture.

I think we all can learn from each other, and it is important to understand the other fellow's point of view.

I learned this from an old socialist, who was really a father figure to me.

Bill once told me that I should try to make the best argument I could for an opposing viewpoint to really understand it.

Bill also often said that I should not accept something as true or valid unless it made sense to me, passed the test of evidence and rationality, regardless of who advocates it. He wanted me to think for myself, to explore and be fearless in the face of where such exploration might lead.

This man had a formal education that stopped at the third-grade, and yet to hear him talk, you would think he was a PhD. He had riddden the rails as an itinerant worker in the early 1900s, in his youth. He joined the Wobblies, one of the early unions. He served in the Navy during World War II, was a union organizer after that, was involved in the anti Jim-Crow movement and the peace movement.

He had the gift of effortless and clear explanation and a patient and tolerant attitude to match. He strove mightily not to insult the intelligence of his opponents and to conduct himself respectfully, and as a gentleman. He wrote absolutely beautiful essays, was a first-rate word smith, was familiar with the great literature of the English language.

He kept current on world affairs and was a keen student of history. He had a great sense of humor, a profound sense of decency and morality.

How he died was exemplary of how he lived. When he was in his early 80s, he cracked a suggestive joke to his wife, and while having a hearty laugh, dropped dead of a stroke.

Bill Kitt was like a father to me, and even now, decades later, I shed a tear in his memory as I write this.

It was he who taught me to respect the other fellow despite any differences of opinion.

My other important life teacher was the headmaster of my Catholic school, Father Vincent Sullivan, who encouraged me to read history and the western philosophers, including Bertrand Russell and Karl Kautsky. He was a linguist who knew several languages, including Russian, Latin, and Greek. It was he who told me I was a student, and as such, the List Of Forbidden Books did not apply to me. He had a true love of learning and inspired this love in us boys.

Father Sullivan was another universal renaissance man in an age and in a place that was suspicious of learning and a liberal education.

These two men have always been my role models, both in learning and in human decency.

Regards,

Alan

[Alan_OldStudent]

Alan and RevWally

Two great posts above. Both show impressive levels of knowledge.

Thanks for the kind words, Zenon.

Yes, I agree. Reverend Wally is an impressive fellow, and I am glad he is here sharing his point of view.

Regards,

Alan

[revwally]

Zenon, Ruberbus, and others,

Thank you for you comments. This has been an enjoyable, and (at least to me) enlightening conversation. It is always a good thing to have a mutually agreed upon civil conversation on topics that can be sensitive, without reacting out of emotionalism or preconceived ideas.

Alan,

Again, thank you for your conversation. I also find you very intellegent -- and your comments have always been insightful.

The one thing in your self-description that surprised me was that you define yourself as an atheist. The rest all fit from previous comments and threads. I would have assumed (dangerous as that word is) that you were agnostic, withholding judgment and opinion as to whether or not there is a God.

Also, thank you for the interjection of humor.
My "specialty" is serving congregations that are in some form of difficult time. One of the gauges that I use as to the health and ability to deal with past present and future issues is the ability to laugh (especially at yourself). so for a lot of reasons -- I appreciated the humor.

wally

[gruntbrain]

I'll end this intelligent thread with a nonsensical question:

What about the threat of no sex marriages?

[Alan_OldStudent]

Zenon, Ruberbus, and others,

Thank you for you comments. This has been an enjoyable, and (at least to me) enlightening conversation. It is always a good thing to have a mutually agreed upon civil conversation on topics that can be sensitive, without reacting out of emotionalism or preconceived ideas.


Amen to that! (grin)


Alan,
************SNIP**********
The one thing in your self-description that surprised me was that you define yourself as an atheist. The rest all fit from previous comments and threads. I would have assumed (dangerous as that word is) that you were agnostic, withholding judgment and opinion as to whether or not there is a God.
***********SNIP*****
My "specialty" is serving congregations that are in some form of difficult time.
************SNIP*********

Hi Reverend,

Thank you for your kind words. I also have enjoyed this conversation.

You prove that it is possible to be a committed advocate of Christianity, clearly put for your views without compromise, without coming off like some kind of sectarian.

And I'm sure you are an effective counselor to those who seek support and advice.

As far as the atheism/agnosticism thing goes, here's my thinking. To me, an atheist is one who does not believe in the Abrahamic God. To me, the Abrahamic God is a god who is separate from the material universe, who brought the material universe into being, who has intention and consciousness, who brought us into being, and who has articulated a moral code for us. One can quibble with the details, but I think that's it, generally speaking. Concommitant with that is the notion that this God is infinite, all wise, all powerful, etc. Once again, this is probably an oversimplification, but I believe that covers it generally.

There have been various attempts over the centuries to prove the existence of this god. (I usually capitalize God when I am referring to the Abrahamic god, as opposed to a more generic meaning). I find none of these arguments to be very compelling.

At the same time, I cannot come up with an argument to disprove the existence of such a deity.

Thus, it is true that I cannot say for certain that there is no God. But at the same time, I can't say very much with absolute certainty at all.

However, certain things seem so probable that they approach certainty for me, such as the proposition that the sun will rise or that if I drop a book, it will fall down instead of up. Then there are things less certain, but which I assume, although such an assumption could easily be untrue. I assume when I get home tonight, my wife will be alive. But being an elderly woman, she might be dead.

Then there are other things which seem quite unlikely to me, although I cannot disprove them. For example, it seems quite unlikely to me that the White House will levitate.

It is in that sense I call myself an atheist instead of an agnostic. I cannot disprove the existence of God, but it seems highly unlikely to me. An agnostic thinks the jury is still out and that it is as likely as not.

Because proclaiming one is an atheist is generally thought to be the same as proclaiming one is amoral, most atheists either keep it private, or they call themselves agnostics. I have no problem with that. We all have to find our comfort level.

Some atheists are greatly bothered by other's belief in God. A few of them have been writing books recently that have been best sellers. I am not one of those. Such atheists look at the evils and horrors that have been committed in the name of this God as having been the result of a supposed corrupting influence that belief in God causes. They look at the repression of free thought, the moral turpitude of so many who have sought to justify this by means of God. Bin Laden justifies his wickedness by appeals to Godliness. So does George Bush. Not many have said much in praise of the devil.

I think such atheists miss the point.

Just as tyrants, oppressors, and cynically evil politicians, as well as some opportunistic "pastors" have justified their actions with religion, many others have made great contributions to human well-being in the name of religion. Religious leaders and institutions have fought for social justice, created great universities, sponsored great art, literature, music, architecture. The King James Bible and the Common Book Of Prayer form the foundations of our beautiful English language.

Wicked people have used religion to clothe their nakedness, but religion is not what caused that nakedness.

That's why I'm not antireligion.

Marx is often quoted as saying that religion is the opiate of the people. In Marx's time, opium was a medicine, used in a preparation called ladaunum. It was given to calm fevers and aching bones from illnesses like the flu.

Here's Marx's quote in a bit more context:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Think about that: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." It is the "sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."

I think that's why you have religion being the voice of oppressed people fighting against oppression and for social justice, while at the same time, you have the oppressors, those who profit from subjugation of others, justifying themselves as being God-fearing and uncompromisingly against corruption, oppressed and oppressors both claiming the favor and the mantle of the master.

I mentioned this before in the old forum. My favorite prayer is what has been called the Tranquility Prayer. It has various versions, but the way I know it is this:

"God grant us the serenity and grace to accept the things we cannot change, the moral courage to change the things we can change, and the wisdom to know the difference."

That's part of the moral challenge facing us today, plus the challenge of recognizing we are all brothers and sisters, born of mothers.

Regards,

Alan

[MikeNY]

The world is many shades of grey. Some of the best Christians I have meet in life were athiests and witches; best meaning they seemed to exemplify the teachings of Jesus.

Known gays and lesbians; knew a Gay man needed a roommate, told someone I knew he was looking for someone to share the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment. She moved in, and later I was invited to thier wedding, he was the bride she always wanted and she was the man he'd been seeking. They were happy and in love, that is all that really matters.

A Civil Marriage and a Religious Marriage makes sense, maybe everyone can win using that formula.