This Monday a woman in town near mine wrote a letter to the editor that I found preposterous and vicious. It is immoral homophobic nonsense of close to the worst kind. She's no Fred Phelps but she's pretty awful. As you read it, wonder at this person's conception of morality. Obedience. Follow the rules and it will make you good no matter how absurd those rules are.
So I responded and it was printed. Here is the beginning.
Read the full response at the Centre Daily Times here. Leave comments there or here.A recent letter exemplifies poor moral reasoning to continue oppressing gays and lesbians.
The writer argues that “our Creator” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is both the Christian God and the source of our human rights. I invite the letter writer to visit a few facts.
First, there is no mention of any Christian deity in the founding documents.
24 comments:
Hi Peter,
I just read this woman's letter. I almost registered to the CDT online just to respond, but as my wife likes to say, never try to teach a pig to sing.
I was going to write a post on my blog about Christians' opposition to the recent hate crimes bill, but haven't yet done so.
These losers will not stop until they've made every man, woman, and child that disagrees with their particular worldview absolutely miserable. I'll never understand why they feel that they alone have the right to live in happiness, but while they stomp on the happiness of others.
And I don't know about you, but I've had it with hearing from right-wing, fundamentalist lunatics about how this country was founded on the Bible when Jesus, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, or even El, do not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Bah!
Peter,
Thank you for linking your post to the woman's letter. However, I don't see how you can refer to it as "vicious" and "homophobic." The only reference she made to the subject was that the "Declaration" doesn't explicitly support same-sex marriage.
Of course, you have your right to disagree, but I feel that by utterly "demonizing" her, you are merely contributing to the general climate of hatred and intolerance, something that bodes poorly for our society.
You should define "demonizing."
Peter,
When you call someone "vicious" or "homophobic," especially without any factual basis to make this assessment, you are degrading and dismissing them, in effect, "demonizing" them.
Matt also is using dismissive, degrading and hateful language, calling people who believe like this woman a "loser."
There will always be disagreements, but we must learn to love the other person even if we regard their ideas as offensive.
There was such mutual contempt between North and South just prior to the Civil War that fistfights broke out in the Senate. It is not surprising that this foreshadowed the war.
Great response, Peter!
Here is an example of viciousness just so you have it straight:
"The argument that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” substantiates gay marriage could simultaneously justify rape or murder."
This is an overt comparison of gay marriage to rape and murder to imply that gay marriage is on the same moral ground of justifiability as forced sex and killing. By any reasonable moral and logical standard that is totally unreasonable and vicious.
Quite obviously she is homophobic: she fears gays and lesbians will be allowed to live as free people engaged in loving long-term monogamous relationships that are recognized by the state. It's quite simply implied in her letter. You can dislike that label as much as you want to, but she has defined herself through her written actions.
I have not made her into a demon. She has identified herself as someone who believes that gays and lesbians are not entitled to something - marriage - that the rest of us are entitled to by our agreed-upon human rights. She is like many other people who believe the same thing. She has singled herself out with the letter and set herself as an exemplar of a very socially intolerant obedience-driven form of Christianity that picks and chooses what it believes to be an abomination and what it ignores.
She may well be a good an loving mother, wife, sister, etc. But she is homophobic and her letter is vicious.
The thing that constantly upsets me about so many of those who call themselves Christian, is their ability to point to an ancient book and say it justifies intolerance and social oppression. Jesus preached a message of compassion and social reform, and of not blindly following the letter of the Law while allowing or promoting suffering of others. He really let the priesthood have it, made it clear they were really committing atrocious acts, and had the message all wrong. He fought for the rights of those that the temple, to date, considered awful and worthy of death, and taught that you should love even those who are “sinners.” Sure, after a few thousand years of following translations and alterations of manuscripts, and falling into a rut of tradition, it might be easy to not realize how far what you practice differs from what you supposedly follow. Maybe we need another messiah, to save us from what “Christianity” has become? Maybe when people say, “What would Jesus do?” they should really THINK about that question. I still think of myself as a follower of Jesus’ teachings, but stopped calling myself Christian because of attitudes like those expressed in her article.
If people want to serve the angry, vengeful face of the God of the bible, they should consider how many things he smote people for. Nobody is without sin in his book, (no pun intended) so who are they to cast any stones?
Mann'sWord,
Not only did this woman display seething hatred for those who have a different sexual orientation than she does, she also displayed ignorance of the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to what you believe about our founding documents, neither of them are based on so-called Judeo-Christian values.
I never want to hear another Christian wail about peace, love, understanding, respect, tolerance, and equal rights. Most Christians have little if any understanding of these concepts, let alone what their Bible truly says.
If you want to say that I'm guilty of hate speech, that's fine. I couldn't care less. But if you dismiss this woman's rhetoric as anything less than hateful, then you're just one more hypocrite.
Peter,
Again, I think that you are placing the worst possible interpretation on that woman’s letter. She is not saying that gay marriage is the same as “rape and murder.” She is merely invoking these two extreme crimes to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.
Matt,
I think you are casting a pretty broad net when you say,
“I never want to hear another Christian wail about peace, love, understanding, respect, tolerance, and equal rights. Most Christians have little if any understanding of these concepts, let alone what their Bible truly says.”
It also sounds pretty intolerant, the very thing that you are accusing Christians of being. I’m afraid that this type of language will simply increase the alienation gulf. Mercy will be shown to the merciful, according to Jesus.
Explain the fallacy. Why use such extreme examples if you don't mean them? She is making a very common fundamentalist argument that places homosexual sex on the same plain as rape and murder. Explain the wiggle room here.
Peter,
Sometimes we polemically make our point clear by using a very extreme, black and white example where there is no controversy. There is no controversy that the "Declaration" does not give us the right to murder. Conclusion: not every behavior represents a civil right!
As a Christian, I am mandated to be concerned about all people, even those who villify me. I may say things to gays that they will not like, but I hope that they realize that I'm there for them--to talk to them, to befriend them, to show that I'm willing to inconvenience myself for their welfare. (I must confess that I must grow in this area!) I hope you too will realize that even if others might disagree with you, this doesn't mean that they're antagonistic.
So you are saying that I am out of line for saying that she has been vicious and intolerant but she is provided some sort of polemic license to compare gay marriage to rape and murder? This is a very strange set of rhetorical rules you have.
I am intolerant of some forms of intolerance like generally unjustified forms of homophobia that grow from narrow readings of so-called Biblical "truths" or "certainties." I have too many religious friends to name and some rather fundamentalist friends (one of whom is a pastor and we are in the process of coauthoring a book). Why I should somehow not call a spade a spade when it is plain as day to me is beyond me. What I see you asking me to do is to gag myself for the sake of someone's feelings when they have been the demonizer and have hitched themselves to historical intolerance and oppression. I suppose that in some way, your call to be a witness for Christ is matched by my call to justice and happiness.
"Matt,
I think you are casting a pretty broad net when you say...It also sounds pretty intolerant, the very thing that you are accusing Christians of being. I’m afraid that this type of language will simply increase the alienation gulf. Mercy will be shown to the merciful, according to Jesus."
Jesus also commanded his followers to hate their parents, and that he came for war, not peace.
I have no problem admitting that I'm intolerant toward Christianity, or any organized religion for that matter. I speak from the experience of living the Christian life for 20 years. After all that time of praying, fasting, reading the Bible, and blind belief, I can honestly tell you that Christianity has left me mentally and morally bankrupt.
Are you saying that Christianity is a religion of tolerance?
Matt,
It truly grieves me that Christianity has left you “mentally and morally bankrupt.” Since Christ has liberated me and so many others, and is there for any who truly come to Him (John 6:37), I can only be left to wonder about what type of “Christianity” you encountered? A legalistic one? A condemning one?
As an example of your antipathy to Christianity, you cite Luke 14:26:
"If anyone comes to me and does not HATE his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.”
If this was literally so, I too would be intolerant of such a Christianity. However, we need to interpret the Biblical language according to its 1st Century context, where it meant something else. The parallel account from Matthew 10:37 makes this clear:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother MORE THAN ME is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
You ask if I’m saying that “Christianity is a religion of tolerance.” There are things that we shouldn’t tolerate like victimization and injustice. However, in the entire Bible, God never turned away anyone who was repentant. Jesus received all who came to Him but not all the things that we might like Him to endorse.
Peter,
I appreciate your emphasis on justice. However, if you continue to misconstrue this woman, YOU are not being just.
I am often guilty of the same thing. My anger or commitment to some set of values (and desire to place everything into a nice neat row) blinds me.
To Mann's Word:
"...to show that I'm willing to inconvenience myself for their welfare."
Hmmm, humble much? Seriously, thanks but no thanks. I don't want to be your little project.
I think that you ought to look into what justice might entail. Whether you take a view like Rawls that conditions ought to exist that entail fair treatment no matter how you start (kind of Kantian) or one, like Nel Noddings, that uses care and empathy/sympathy (an extension of Hume and Smith) then homophobia can't be justified. Until you are able to justly or caringly characterize homophobia then you're not going to convince me of anything. You need some criteria and all you've put forward is that I am either intolerant or angry.
I am not going to allow one person to demand fair treatment when they patently treat others unfairly AND callously.
Peter,
I think that we both recognize that we have a responsibility to care for all people, including gays. However, we might differ about what form this caring might take. I think we have a tendency in our society to associate care with indulgence. Sometimes what people want is also what will hurt them most.
However, your final statement disturbs me. It sounds like you are ready to retaliate against someone who says something you don't agree with. How can you take such a position and then insist on justice? But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?
Mann'sWord,
I became a dad on June 9th. He's been here for about 3 weeks now. I stay awake with him while his mother sleeps. When I look at him it only crystallizes the fact that Christianity is a lie. I wouldn't give my son up for anything. If the "Father" wanted to rescue mankind from sin, he would have come and done it himself instead of committing such a selfish and cowardly act by sending his only son to suffer and bleed for his glory.
The Greek word for hate in Matthew 10:37 is miseo, which means despise, detest, and also to love less. If you have children, could you imagine looking them in the eye and telling them that you love them less than Jesus? If my parents told me that they hated me, or loved me less than God, I'd be a wreck.
So if you do have children, go look them right in the eye right now and tell that you hate them, but it's a godly sort of hate, and it's Jesus' will that you love them less than himself.
Seriously, how much love does your god need? If he created the universe and is all-powerful, how fragile does his ego have to be to demand his creation to love him with undying loyalty? Any god that would put you in a situation to choose between himself or your kids is no god worth serving.
Matt,
Congratulations on your new son!
Much of what you raise is personal and subjective. My wife and child have no problem accepting the fact that God and His truth come first in my life. Perhaps this is because these two forms of love aren't competing but complimentary. In fact, my wife realizes that my devotion to God actually elevates and invests our marriage with fullness and meaning.
God is actually the glue that holds us together through the hard times. If my feelings for my wife were paramount, then my angers and frustrations would also be paramount. These feelings can be very destructive if not tempered by something higher.
At this point, you might protest that you too have commitments and values that are higher than your changing feelings. But if you resort to this reasoning, then you too are acknowledging that you have something higher than your feelings of love for your family.
However, if this is your position, you have an additional problem. What is higher for you are merely unfounded values. You would have a problem answering Nietzsche who would charge that these self-created principles are merely a part of your will-to-power and lack any basis in reality. In contrast, I think that my Savior is the only sufficient foundation for love, relationship and life.
I don't quite get the idea of interpreting rules of conduct for the 21st century, based on their 1st century context. The Constitution was designed to grow and change. This allows us to adapt laws to account for social dynamics, racial acceptance, international treaties, etc. The design is intended to allow growth, and not stagnation.
The body of Christian texts was also added to over time, and these often touched on then present-day issues. Has this been allowed to continue, I think Christianity would be a religious philosophy that truly embraced humanity. But it was artificially capped, effectively castrated, and the parts that didn't agree with a council's view wiped out as much as possible as heresy. How can something like that be the "ultimate source of law?"
And how is the statement, “Americans are too wise to make laws based on personal religious beliefs" irresponsible? I'm fine with blasphemous, because that's not a universal sentiment. But how would making laws based on ANY one set of religious beliefs be in any way responsible? How would that extend liberty to all the people of this country, who are accorded religious freedom? Or the freedom to not be religious. The only responsible way to make law is to ignore religion, because it would be impossible to please every one of them, including new ones that are just as legally valid.
Jeff,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. If the Bible is merely a human 1st century artifact, then you are entirely correct that it shouldn’t be normative in the 21st century, not even for Christians. Of course, this then begs the question, “What evidence do you have that this is the Word of God?” I’m hoping to soon post on my blog some evidences in support of this Christian claim.
I think you are mistaken about how the church councils determined the shape of the Bible. You might even consult a Christianity-despiser like Bart Ehrman, who in his book about the fallacies of the DaVinci Code wrote:
“The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars.” (Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, 102)
Don’t be so quick to even dismiss HUMAN traditions. Our courts largely render decisions based upon past writings and legal precedents. If you throw all of these away and assert that the 21st century and every case is different, you leave yourself without much basis for judgment – perhaps only what you (or the majority) might feel at the moment.
You also raise an important point about the viability of a democracy ruled by religious dogma:
“But how would making laws based on ANY one set of religious beliefs be in any way responsible? How would that extend liberty to all the people of this country, who are accorded religious freedom? Or the freedom to not be religious. The only responsible way to make law is to ignore religion, because it would be impossible to please every one of them, including new ones that are just as legally valid.”
Truly, I can’t demand that my Bible be authoritative for the Muslim or Buddhist. I am therefore constrained to make my case based upon common, pragmatic concerns. For instance, when I argue “pro-life,” I don’t expect people to defer because I quote to them how we are created in the image of God. However, I might reason regarding the wisdom of this particular verse by comparing a sanctity-of-life orientation to a quality-of-life stance. I argue that everyone has a philosophy that carries social implications – that the latter is dangerous because it gives society the right to determine the relative values of other people.
You might argue that yours isn’t a quality-of-life stance, but a pro-choice stance. I would then retort, “Pro-choice based upon which principles? Quality-of-life for the person making the choice? Wouldn’t this lead to euthanizing the elderly, Republicans, subversives?”
Many people take issue with this type of pragmatic language because they know that God stands behind it. However, we all have our particular lens, religion or worldview that determines how we see life. It is therefore biased to just take issue with the theist.
I have been following Christ for 33 years, and I’m increasingly amazed by the wisdom of the Bible and its power to transform lives and society.
Mann,
Please stop moving the goalposts. Nietzsche has no relation to what Matt has said. By arguing against that position, you've created a straw man and also created a fallacious dichotomy/false choice about Matt's moral and philosophical position. By doing that, you've made a non sequitur because your conclusion doesn't follow from what he's actually said. It follows from what you think he meant to say.
And once again, your accusation that Matt is using subjective criteria regarding the Bible and Christianity is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy coming from someone who keeps a blog and writes on other people's blogs about his subjective experiences with Christianity. Let's have some consistency please.
And on this issue of consistency, it's kind of appalling to say that God never turned anyone away who was repentant. How do you know that? None of the people that were killed, tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, that were (allegedly) killed in the Noachian deluge repented? Why not? What of the individuals in the tribes in Judges? Perhaps they weren't given the chance. But I guess we can't know can we? Jeptha's daughter? Great salvation there.
Peter,
Please reread my response to Matt. I don't dismiss all personal or subjective experience. I was simply trying to frame it within its greater context.
When I mentioned Nietzsche, I admitted that I was anticipating Matt's response.
As far as God never refusing to forgive someone who requested it, you have failed to provide any Biblical evidence to the contrary. The Bible is remarkably consistent in what it teaches. Although, it is easy for people to misinterpret things to show the contrary.
Post a Comment