Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.
Therein lies Howard Dean’s opinion of Christianity. It amazes me that shortly after 9/11, a massive public message campaign was launched to help save Islam’s image. So now, it’s not politically correct to consider Islam a violent religion intent on murdering the innocent in the name of god, even though their scriptures command followers to "convert or kill".
So when MY religion, and I can quote the scripture directly, states that homosexuality is a sin, am I afforded the same respect? Are my beliefs tolerated? No.
Instead, I am called a bigot. Not because I harbor any ill feelings towards homosexuals, not because I want to deny them basic human rights, not because I hate homosexuals. No. I am called a bigot because I adhere to the teaching of my religion.
Thanks, Mr. Dean. You've just reaffirmed the anti-Christian mentality that your party holds.
8 comments:
Further, in the source you referenced, Dean in no way calls Christians "bigots," are you prepared to apologize now for denigrating and misquoting Dean? Slander is a serious thing for a Christian to be taking part in. (Dean was accusing the Republicans of using gay marriage as a wedge issue and called that a bad thing. In the source you gave, I don't see him calling Christians anything.)
Also, you said: "So when MY religion, and I can quote the scripture directly, states that homosexuality is a sin"
And just to correct another misstatement (accidental, I'm sure), you can't quote scripture directly that says, "homosexuality is a sin" - such a scripture doesn't exist.
There are two lines in the OT where "men laying with men" is condemned and where it says they ought to be killed. But what is "men laying with men"? Temple prostitution? Pederasty? Homsexuality? Well, we just don't know for sure.
Then, there is a line in the NT where Paul condemns people giving up "natural relations" and lust instead for the same gender. But Paul is condemning giving up "natural relations," and we know that for gays, natural relations would be with the same gender.
Finally, there are three or so other lines in the NT where a word is translated variously as "soft," "effeminete," "homosexual offender," "homosexual" and maybe a couple of other variations. This word is included in a list of sinners (including the greedy and liars) but is it talking about homosexuality? Well, no one truly knows. Translators are unsure of the word, but the context seems to suggest an "offender" of some sort, not someone who is merely following their "natural relations" in a healthy committed relationship.
So, in short, you can't really point to a place in the Bible where it condemns homosexuality anymore than you can point to a place where it condemns hetereosexuality. There are all manner of sexual expressions that are abusive or unhealthy that are condemned - heterosexual and homosexual, but not any place where the Bible condemns "homosexuality" itself.
Now, if some Christians want to believe that those few verses ARE talking about homosexuality - even committed and healthy gay relationships - then you are free to do so. But, in the US, we put limitations on how much one can discriminate based upon one's religious beliefs. A person can read the Bible and find a rason to hate the Irish, for example, if they want to. But we can't stop the Irish from marrying based upon the religious beliefs of those who might believe that. Further, some may believe that God meant it when Leviticus says that "men who lay with men ought to be killed," but we ought not make that a law. You're free to believe it but not free to impose it, in other words.
"9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
That's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
I understand that truth is in the eye of the reader. I understand that some can rationalize any behavior, even to the point of suggesting it is biblical, but I don't see any other way to interpret this passage other than perhaps homosexuality is sinful.
You may think that God is okay with homosexuality, that it is 'natural' behavior - even though if this were true it would violate nature's laws - not exactly a very good way to ensure survival of the species (which begs the question, how can someone believe in the 'natural'ness of homosexuality while also believing in Darwinian evolution...hmmm). And your interpretation of the Bible is fascinating, though quite naive and quite misquided.
The truth is, you could twist and contort enough biblical passages to justify slavery, suppression of women, imperialism and many other bad things. People have been doing it for years.
But nowhere in the above passage do I see room for God to be okay with homosexuality, and nowhere do I see any hint that God would sanctify gay marriage.
Regardless, I am not alone in this opinion. And to be clear, this is not about IMPOSING my beliefs on someone else. It's about UPHOLDING the will of the people. And to this point the will of the people has ALWAYS been to vote against homosexual marriage.
My point was that Howard Dean shouldn't criticize those against homosexual marriage as bigots when our position is based on religious doctrine. How can anyone argue with me on this point?
He didn't call anyone bigots. You slandered him. How can anyone argue in favor of slander?
On the gay thing, I won't continue on and on. Just wanted you to know that it is not as clear as you (and I, at one time) think it is. That word translated "homosexual offender" is an unknown word. Translators aren't sure what it means. I think literally it means "soft," if I'm remembering correctly.
You are, of course, free to think it means what you have (and I had) been taught that it means. Just don't try to legislate rights away based upon your biblical interpretation. Please have some civic reasons for whatever laws you might want passed.
Howard Dean: "a proposed federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is effectively writing discrimination into our Constitution."
That sounds like 'bigot' to me.
But considering your interpretation of the Bible, I can see where you would consider this statement innocent.
I think it's funny how progressives say things like "free to think it means what you have (and I had) been taught that it means", as if you're enlightened and superior and we're ignorant to the truth. It's clever. And for the record it has nothing to do with what I've been taught.
I'm intelligent enough to understand what "homosexual offenders" means. It's not as though I've been brainwashed by the evil Christians intent on excluding and condemning.
As for "civic reasons", forgive me, but I thought a VOTE was actually a pretty good civic reason. I guess such logic only applies when it's convenient.
"a proposed federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is effectively writing discrimination into our Constitution."
Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, Dean is right. Banning gay marriage IS writing discrimination into our constitution. You may think it a justified discrimination (as in disallowing adults to marry children) but it IS a discrimination.
And it is not bigotry to say so and it is certainly not bigotry towards some christian folk, as he doesn't even mention christians at all.
And I don't think you're getting my points at all, John. I'M not intelligent enough to know what "homosexual offender" means. The biblical translators and linguists will tell you THEY don't know what it means. It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with translating from a language from 2000 years ago. The literal world is soft (Neither the greedy, nor the liars, nor the idolators, nor the soft shall enter the kingdom of God...) WHAT does that mean? We have been taught that it means homosexual offender - even loving committed gay marriage, and so that's what we tend to THINK that it means but we do so based on tradition, not what the word actually says.
And, when I say we ought to make decisions for civic reasons, I'm talking about the same thing the catholic church talks about when it divides "morality" in to two groups for purposes of talking civic responsibility. (I forget the term they have for this, but you'll get the gist). There are beliefs that we have that are of a non-civic nature. Many christians believe in the virgin birth and the triune nature of God. BUT these are not beliefs that we would or should try to legislate. We also believe that murder is a sin but we DO try to legislate that. What's the difference? We can make a civic case against murder - it causes harm to someone else and is therefore wrong.
A clue to the difference can be found in where we find justification for a rule. If, as in the virgin birth, our only reason for believing that is church tradition and what we think the bible says, then that is sufficient for our religious beliefs. BUT we have no civic, no inter-personal reasons to force that belief on others.
The case against gay marriage is almost exclusively derived from some people's religious belief and no civic reasons. For that reason, we ought not legislate against gay marriage short of coming up with civic (non-biblical) reasons. That is not a slam against christianity but a common christian teaching.
Again, I say that you have slandered Dean wrongly.
I can see this discussion isn't going anywhere. But I stand by my comments about Dean.
I choose to support an amendment banning gay marriage. Such a position is derived from my religious belief, and Dean feels that it amounts to discrimination. He's calling me, and many other people, a person who discriminates...thus, a bigot. And the source for said discrimination is my religious belief, thus the whole point of my original post.
Finally, I refuse to believe that a religious document written by the Holy Spirit of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Being would somehow get lost in translation. That's my response to those who quibble over differences in translation. I truly don't believe my God would allow His word to be muddled by man. But that's how I feel.
You've got your reasons. So be it.
It doesn't matter what the bible says, because its mythology, not the word of some "god".
Now, I won't come to your church and protest you, because I respect your rights. But if you start spouting your religious delusions in public there is no reason not to point out how stupid you are to everyone and anyone that will listen. After, religion is politics, and we don't want some delusional religious idiocy subjugating the constitution and influencing public policy.
Post a Comment