Comments

Entry: On Homosexuality Part deux Thursday, December 04, 2003

I didn't realise until now just how liberal in thought my dear Drazick is. I should begin watching my back now for unwanted male attention *LOL*...

Thanks for the comments, Michel. I think I found a way to solve your problem:

I wrote in my little questionnaire:
7. It is acceptable for homosexuals to have exactly the same rights and privileges traditionally and religiously reserved for heterosexual couples

This is really the crux, because if you seek privileges "religiously reserved for hetersexuals", then it becomes no longer acceptable. This has been my point from the beginning.

Hypothetically, Religion X says homosexuality is bad. Homosexual Y living in Government Z has won a legal battle to legitimize his chosen lifestyle. Y now has all rights and privileges accorded under law and is protected from prejudice.

Everything is good for X, Y and Z until Y decides he wants to be a evangelist for Religion X, a faith he has kept since birth. Religion X must spurn Y for religious reasons. Y then decides to get married in X's church. That would make X appear permissive towards homosexuality, and is refused.

Y then makes a complaint to Z urging for laws to be introduced to prohibit X's treatment of homosexuals in a certain way.

Ridiculous?

I think the crux of this issue is that America has been, and should always be, a secular state. Otherwise, what would be the difference between America and fundamentalist Iran, except in America it would be Christianity where the other is Islam?

If Y decides he wants to be an evangelist for Religion X, religion X must spurn him as an evangelist for religious reasons because he has not followed the teachings of Religion X. That is the perogative of Religion X.

However, if Y decides to get married, it would be in country Z ruled by Government Z which is secular. The government which is secular has a right to legalize homosexual marriages outside of the ordination of the church. It is the religion itself that must make a stand to not recognise this marriage on religious terms, but the church technically has no jurisdiction over a legal marriage - since marriages are considered legal even if they are not performed by the church.

If America spurns terrorism, can terrorists in America claim rights and privileges that all American citizens have? Right to free speech (like, "kill all americans!!")? Right to privacy (like, "you can't search my car for a bomb unless i give you permission").

Actually yes. Unless a terrorist has a proven or suspected motive, his car cannot be searched without a warrant, and he cannot be monitored unless he is found guilty or there is evidence that he is posing a threat. The right to free speech is drawn from the idea that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and terrorist or otherwise, a person's rights cannot be taken away from him unless he is proven guilty of offence that reneges those rights.

This is something ignored in the latest Patriot Act. Why do we sign away our rights out of fear?

Freedom and Liberty is great. Homosexuality should be acceptable and accorded their right to live life, just as the religious have the right to religion.

Yup, I so very much agree with that. Although I find this statement a bit contradictory after what you've been leading up to all this time, Michel. Playing the Devil's Advocate?

11 comments


	Drazick December 10, 2003 07:38 AM PST at least until the church as a whole issued an official reversal of its stance, just as in the many cases of catholic saints that have risen from that loftly position from the Ashes of Heresy. In which case, those of the faith will then realign themselves with the "correct" viewpoint propogated by Mother Church.


	Michel December 9, 2003 02:26 PM PST "So the point stands thus, When a strong enough need arises, the bible will be reinterpeted to blend in with the times and need." Political impetus, but this reintepretation, as you put it, isn't. A Protestant is no less likely than a Catholic to condemn divorce as being unchristianly. Political impetus, but men of true faith and true learning will redirect secular teachings back to the foundation, that is the Word. If anything, it's heartening to know that such mistakes are recanted and doctrine is realigned to the Word. Such reforms are far less obvious than the breaks from tradition, and are not led by secular or populist thought. This is a excellent case for that point, that while divorce continues to be common, even among the devout, it is not an acceptable practice. The Church should take a similar stance toward homosexuality. To deny that homosexuality exists would be wrong, and to deny homosexuals the Word on the basis of their sin would be equally wrong. But if it runs contrary to the Word, it should not be condoned, legalized (in the religious sense) or promulgated. In summary, sinners who seek forgiveness shouled (and are) granted it, homosexuality bad, homosexual bishop very bad, a church that condones homosexuality and a homosexual bishop very very bad.


	Drazick December 9, 2003 09:07 AM PST You have pointed out one of the areas of disagreement. Also, in this case, methodology is synonymous with interpretation. The various sects have their own beliefs of how the word of god should be proliferated and followed. Case in point the 17th(minor correction-it should be the 17th century, in other posts i mentioned it was in the 19th century) century contention regarding a catholics right to divorce. Following the breakaway of the Church of England due to King Henry's libido, the english bishops then proceeded to realign themselves with the Kings point of view, reinterpreting the bible in order to justify the Kings desire to divorce and remarry. Naturally, those in England became protestant(for the most part, anyway) and catholicism was slowly but surely bred out of the Royal Line. In fact, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 effectively prohibits a Roman Catholic from ever sitting on the throne of England. Of course, this is just one example of how religion and the bible might be reinterpreted to suit ones own political purposes, from which springs the Origins of Prostestantism. Of course, this required stronger emphasis on parts of the bible that made no mention of divorce being expressly denied. So the point stands thus, When a strong enough need arises, the bible will be reinterpeted to blend in with the times and need. I really don't see this as a particularly difficult concept to grasp. And that being the case, there really isnt anyone in any position to condemn one interpretation over another. If one would rank, "complaining rights" however, protestant have less cause to complain then catholics, since the protestant denomination of christianity was founded due to just such a reinterpretation of the bible.


	Michel December 9, 2003 06:16 AM PST Do you even know what the disagreements were before you point to them as flaws and inconsistency in the Word of God? The Catholic tradition, while believing in the Christ, prefer the old testament Priesthood. They are traditionalists, preferring to have their priests interceed on their behalf, and in prayer, use Mary and the Saints to interceed on their behalf. The disagreements stem from certain passages in the New Testament that encourage a more open channel of religion, where all men who claim the Word of God, all men of faith are part of an elect priesthood. Does Catholism and Protestanism differ in their core doctrines? NO! The differences are methodological, not religious. Please try again.


	Drazick December 5, 2003 12:37 PM PST Who is it that decides what it the word of God? Also, the matter of Protestant and Catholic canon IS a matter of editing. Theres no way around it. Considering that the bible itself is a complilation of other historical works, the inclusion or exclusion of certain works in favour of others means that certain elements are deleted from the two different versions of the bibles. Who decides what stays and what goes? Not god certainly, but men, who interpret what they THINK ought to be included or excluded. Partly to differentiate themselves from the other sects, partly to suit their own interpretation of the "word of god". As Michel said, "The further reformations within Protestanism pertained to minor disagreements with points (2) and (3). Point (3) in particular, is in part, the Protestant rejection of Catholicism, in favour of New Testament teachings. " If there are minor disagreements regarding certain doctrines, does the fact that they form a consensus imply that what IS agreed upon is correct? No. Another group is free to interpret the bible differently and form their own sect. In the end, the more popular viewpoint will win out. But that doesn't make it any holier either.


	Michel December 5, 2003 12:01 AM PST From the Catholic Encyclopedia online. "An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words: The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to Christ, proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism � the absolute supremacy of (1) the Word, and of (2) the grace of Christ, and (3) the general priesthood of believers." The issue then, therefore, was largely methodical. The further reformations within Protestanism pertained to minor disagreements with points (2) and (3). Point (3) in particular, is in part, the Protestant rejection of Catholicism, in favour of New Testament teachings. However, despite these apparent conflicts (some, more politically motivated than religiously), never resulted in the misappropriation of the Word (unless you wish to consider the Protestant Canon over the Catholic Canon a matter of editing), and never contradicted the Word. The appointment and confirmation of an openly homosexual bishop however, is in direct contravention to the Word, a testament to how far the Church in America has fallen. The fine line of which you speak should not exist. Faith in the Word, which is of God, and is God, not faith in the Church. The Church is a tool, it is not a god.


	Drazick December 4, 2003 05:23 AM PST There have been many such shisms in the christian faith, from the 1800s when King Henry of England split with the Catholic Church in Rome, to the many divided factions of Protestantism. With each change, each faction seeking to various degrees to differentiate themselves from their origins, to reinvent themselves, so to speak. If religion did not change, there wouldn't be so many differing factions i think. I do agree that humans ought to try to be as perfect as they are able to, living according to principles God teaches us. Yet the religious history of the churches has been so controverisal that i cannot help but doubt the truth of their words. The line between the word of God and the word of man disguised as God is a fine one. COntradictory as it sounds, i'm sure it exists, but i dont believe one would find it in a church. Ironically, what i DO believe, is that if the Son of God came down to earth now, in todays world. The various churches would condemn his as a heretic.


	Michel December 4, 2003 03:11 AM PST "Although I find this statement a bit contradictory after what you've been leading up to all this time, Michel. Playing the Devil's Advocate?" I mentioned before that I had already exceeded my opinion on the matter, and that what proceeds from this discussion may not be my opinion per se. I do believe homosexuals should be accepted and granted protection and rights. I do believe also, that the Church should be protected from the rights of homosexuals, or any other form of sin for that matter. Humans cannot be perfect, but must try to. A homosexual bishop is not trying, a homosexual bishop is taking the attitude of permissiveness and perverting religion.


	Michel December 4, 2003 03:06 AM PST "Unless a terrorist has a proven or suspected motive, his car cannot be searched without a warrant, and he cannot be monitored unless he is found guilty or there is evidence that he is posing a threat." "In the first place, how does one know a terrorist on sight?" Both these points (one by metaphoric, the other by Drazick) are exactly why said "If America spurns terrorism, can terrorists in America claim rights and privileges that all American citizens have?" The paranoia post-911 showed the American people at their worst, because they allowed their government to remove from them their rights. We cannot tell terrorist from civilian easily. We cannot profile racially, or religiously, which is bias. And we cannot wait until they act. which would be too late. What exactly constitutes suspicious behaviour? How would we know if someone has received a large infusion of cash from an offshore account, from a donation box or even from a briefcase in a train station locker? That is, how would we know if we weren't already looking? Innocent until proven guilty works great, after the fact, and before the trial. With terrorists, we cannot wait till the fact has passed.


	Michel December 4, 2003 03:00 AM PST A secular state founded on Christian principles. Religious trappings may be less evident in the States now. Religion really is one of those things you can either have both feet in, or none at all, even if many (if not most) prefer to straddle both sides. America herself continues to do just that. Yes, the easy solution is to secularize marriage, distinct and seperate from a religious one. But I don't think it will silence protests from either side of the homosexuality fence. I do not know if you're following the exploits of the "Bishop" Gene Robinson, but it has largely influenced my opinions here. In the name ministry, one man, backed by his congregation, has caused a potential divide between the Churches of America and England. In one step, changing those core beliefs we were talking about, and in doing so, changed religion itself. Excepts from CNN.com "On November 3, overseas bishops who said they represented 50 million of the world's 77 million Anglicans jointly announced they were in a "state of impaired communion" with the Episcopal Church -- a step short of declaring a full schism. Conservatives within the U.S. church have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the Anglican Church, to authorize a separate Anglican province for them in North America. Three conservative dioceses -- Pittsburgh and two in Texas -- approved measures Saturday reflecting displeasure with Robinson's appointment. The Pittsburgh diocese approved an amendment aimed at allowing the diocese to ignore some of the national church's policies. The Fort Worth diocese passed a resolution repudiating Robinson's appointment. The Northwest Texas diocese in Amarillo decided individuals can ask to keep 2004 donations within the diocese rather than sending part of them to a national Episcopalian organization." "Elsewhere in the state, about half the members of the Episcopal parish in Rochester walked out of Sunday services to protest the dismissal of their interim minister, who opposes Robinson's appointment." This will not be the first time the Church will be in schism. But this time, the Word is ignored, and homosexuality will be allowed to press it's case from within the Church. Will we now be told that homosexuality is not a sin, it's just being born different, in contravention of the Word? Secular America has spilt over into the Church, and soon, we will have a secular religion, a non-religion wearing the robes of a false bishop. This is the state of permissiveness, where we cannot stop when we should. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Government and Religion living in unity is possible, but only in the most idealistic of minds. We can't even manage one Government working in unity, much less a whole gender. The American Permissiveness will fall upon itself, and it will not be pretty. I cannot say I will mourn her passing.


	Drazick December 4, 2003 01:02 AM PST Hey, just because i believe homosexuality is natural, doesn't mean i actually practice it =P back to the point, however.. From Michel "This is really the crux, because if you seek privileges "religiously reserved for hetersexuals", then it becomes no longer acceptable. This has been my point from the beginning." I guess my point is that religion, is interpreted very much based on the culture and society of the day. Certain general principles can be derived from religious teachings, but many are also influenced by societies morals. Unlike what the churches of yesteryear assumed, morals are not stagnant things. Neither do they occur in isolation with society. Just as religious beliefs can influence the law, so does society (or so i believe) influence what is religiously acceptable or not. From michel "If America spurns terrorism, can terrorists in America claim rights and privileges that all American citizens have? Right to free speech (like, "kill all americans!!")? Right to privacy (like, "you can't search my car for a bomb unless i give you permission")." In the first place, how does one know a terrorist on sight? contratry to Bush hyperbole, they do not all wear turbans, have dark skin, live in the desert and are arabic. Realistically, there is no way to tell a terrorist from the US's elected. Neither in words, deeds or actions. So how does one define a terrorist? well to keep things simple, evidence. If there is a reasonable degree of suspicion, investigation can be initiated, enter the criminal justice process, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Leave a Comment:

Name

Homepage (optional)

Comments