Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, and many other anti-gay leaders of the ex-gay movement are in Washington, D.C. lending their support to efforts to exclude gay couples from the protections of equality promised by the United States Constitution. They do this under the guise of Christianity.
However, Mark Dayton, Senator from Minnesota, brought his faith to this debate and found within his Christianity a different commandment:
In addition to being un-American this amendment is also un-Christian.
Now I hesitate to bring religion into this debate. I’m highly skeptical of politicians who do so. Giving a Bible to a politician is like giving a blowtorch to a pyromaniac.
However, I re-read the New Testament in preparation for this debate. And I cannot find a single instance in any of the four Gospels in which my savior Jesus Christ speaks a single word against same-sex marriages or even same-sex relationships.
He intones six times against divorce and twelve times against adultery. Yet I’m not aware of any proposed constitutional amendment to ban either of them. Nor would I support them.
But I also know that he preached for love and acceptance and against hatred and discrimination. He said the great commandment was to love God and the second was like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself. Not just your family member, not just your friend, but to love your neighbor, whoever happens to be living beside you, as you would yourself.
There is no love in this constitutional amendment. There’s discrimination and underneath discrimination lies judgment and hatred.
Jesus said also to beware of false prophets and charlatans, the fake good doers. And he said the way to tell the difference is that the true believers practice love, while the false prophets preach hate.
And that’s why this amendment is un-Christian.
Amen
Video of this declaration of faith is available at goodasyou.org
“Do unto others.”
I have frequently posed this question to exagay leaders, including Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas. What if our positions were reversed? What if we proposed a constitutional amendment that would prevent all conservative Christians from marrying each other. What if it became illegal for conservative Christians to marry or acquire health insurance for their mates?
Would they find this to be a loving act (as they insist they are doing to us)? Or would they find it to be the very essence of a hateful act?
In fact, is there any act more hateful than preventing two adult people who love each other from marrying? They dodge the question, of course. Alan’s response was, “Well, I’d be sad if you supported something like that.”
Sad? Look at what’s happening now. The least bit of criticism of the Christian community brings cries of HATE. THE WAR AGAINST CHRISTMAS!! Right now, no group is more thin-skinned than conservative Christians who seem to see a Enemy of God around every corner.
But then, people who believe themselves to be chosen of God to save others are rarely able to hold up a mirror and see themselves.
Wow, powerful stuff. The real Christians speak up at last.
I swear I left a comment on this topic last night, and now it is gone. I do not believe I said anything offensive. This has happened several times before… is there a bug in the coding on this site or does someone keep deleting them?
Steve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
It’s fairly classic projection. They’re thin skinned precisely because they are attacking others for their beliefs and freedoms.
Amen to the Senator from Minnesota
I watched that live. Well articulated, humbly spoken and dead on, God bless that man.
nonsequitur at June 7, 2006 11:16 AM
I’m not a techno-genius, but I can’t see any indication of a comment being either deleted or restricted for this posting.
Maybe Mike or Daniel can tell better.
If this happened, we apologize.
Isn’t Dayton guilty of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
Mark,
Isn’t Dayton guilty of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
It would be helpful if you would elaborate on how and why you think Senator Dayton is using a “no true Scotsman” fallacy in this instance. Then someone else can intelligently respond if they like. Posting just the one line question forces someone else to both make your argument and then address it as well.
Thanks,
David Roberts
“Isn’t Dayton guilty of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?”
I’m not seeing it. I think you misunderstand how the phrase is applied.
Dayton seems to be saying that “no true Christian” could support the amendment. The generally accepted definition of “Christian” is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, which is quite general, but it has to be because there are a million interpretations of the teachings of Christ.
The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is changing a commonly accepted definition of a term to suit your argument. for example: “No true Christian prays to the Virgin Mary.” “But my uncle Bill is a Christian and prays to the Virgin Mary.” “Well, no true Christian…”
On the other hand, it’s correct to say that “no true atheist” beleieves in God, because lack of belief in god is the accepted definition of an atheist.
Jesus said nothing on the topic of homosexuality, but he also said he did not come to overturn the old law, so a person can still call himself a Christian and be anti-gay.
You need to read his quote again. Dayton wasn’t saying that a Christian could not support the MPA but that the amendment was un-Christian.
It’s the difference between nouns and adjectives. A Christian (noun) can behave in un-Christian (adjective) behavior or have an un-Christian (adjective) attitude while still remaining a Christian (noun). From time to time we all do.
Also, he listed his reasons why he thinks it is contrary to the teachings of Christ. That is not saying that opposing the amendment is a defining characteristic of “Christian” but rather that the amendment was not consisten with the characteristics of “Christian” (as being defined by the teachings of Jesus Christ).
(way off subject and verging on religousness, but…)
“Jesus said nothing on the topic of homosexuality, but he also said he did not come to overturn the old law…”
I think the scripture you’re discussing is in Matthew where Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it.
In the following scriptures Jesus utilizes an interesting linguistic tool. He sets up instances of the law and then takes them to the extreme.
Follow the law? Yeah, you better follow every single item in it and then some. You think murder’s bad? Well I say being angry is as bad as committing murder. You think adultery’s bad? Well I say just looking is as bad as doing it.
He goes on to set up an impossible situation whereby any tiny step in the wrong direction is every bit as bad as the most heinous sin you can imagine.
He says “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”.
What it seems to me is that he’s saying that adherence to the law is all fine and good but that as a legalistic tool it doesn’t have much value. Because you can’t meet God’s expectations any more than a small child could possibly live without doing things that annoy a parent. There’s no way a man can be as perfect as God.
What then does the phrase “fulfill the law” mean. I think it means the same thing as fulfilling a contract. It’s done. You haven’t abolished the contract, just completed it. And you’re ready for the next contract.
And that is, after all, the basis of Christian theology. That man is in a new contract with God. Unfortunately the Church has come up with some sort of bastardized combination of the two contracts.
It’s like you try to build a part for a wing on a fighter jet according to the contract with the Air Force while your supervisor keeps wanting to look back to the specifications on a different part for a different contract.
(OK, nuff of the discourse on scripture, back to Dayton’s quote).
I realize I’m late in this discussion, but I do think Jesus defines marriage in a way that, by inference, excludes gay marriage. In Matthew 19, Jesus answers the Pharisees’ question regarding divorce by saying, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” That, to me, excludes gay marriage. Jesus, being the Creator of the world, certainly ought to know why men and women were created!
Regarding the comments about preaching hate, I feel that is unfair. I attend a conservative church that believes the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. That belief does not equate with hate. We welcome anyone. That does not mean we endorse all behavior. We believe that all are sinners and, that is why we are in need of a Savior. I hear words from the pulpit that cause me to examine my own behavior and thinking. Because I am ‘convicted’ doesn’t mean those words were hateful.
Yes, I know there are people who are hateful in their interpretation and expressions of their Christian beliefs, but I don’t think it is fair to put all ‘Christians’ together in this! The commandment to love God and thy neighbor as thyself is definitely true, but I don’t equates with ignoring Scriptural teaching, and therby endorsing all behavior—in myself or others!
Personally, I am very concerned about people who seem to be ready to judge me as a Christian by whatever they think are my beliefs and behaviors, rather than actually considering me as an individual—who may not fit their stereotype idea of a Christian. Who’s intolerant here?
Timothy said:
And that is, after all, the basis of Christian theology. That man is in a new contract with God. Unfortunately the Church has come up with some sort of bastardized combination of the two contracts.
This sounds like Dispensationalism, which as I understand it appeared as a major school of thought in Christian theology only in the the past couple of centuries. It was given a recent boost by the Hal Lindsey books in the 70’s and the “Left Behind” series of the past decade (though they focus mainly on the Tribulation and Return).
I’ve never been keen on this view. It appears to me as a neat template applied from without to Scripture and history, rather than an extraction of what is there. Historical Christianity sees God’s covenant with man beginning with Abraham’s faith and ending with Christ’s return, the Church being a natural part of the plan rather than a side issue (and the Law a tool along the way).
I’m not challenging your belief one way or the other, only your statement that this idea is the basis of Christian theology in general. I would say instead that it is the basis for much of the modern evangelical and charismatic movements.
Audrey said:
Regarding the comments about preaching hate, I feel that is unfair. I attend a conservative church that believes the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. That belief does not equate with hate.
I’ll agree that this belief does not necessarily equate with hate. If one studies Scripture with an open heart and comes away with a genuine understanding that homosexuality is a sin, one is certainly free to believe that and I don’t think that necessarily makes anyone hateful. I think it is important to remember, however, that Scripture can be misinterpreted and so we may just be wrong (that goes both ways). With Sanctification comes growth, and God may help you understand errors in understanding later in your journey. This is one reason we are supposed to let Him do the judging and treat others with love in the mean time.
We have a dear poster named Grace who believes as you seem to and she certainly doesn’t express hatred. However, if one uses any belief as an excuse to insult others, and to control how other adults may live and work within the bounds of a civil society – that is hateful would you not agree? I see no evidence in Scripture, certainly not in the Gospels, that we are commanded to make the government enforce our religious sensibilities against the free will of the individual. But neither am I going to insist that any Church teach something they do not sincerely believe. Just try to remember that we can maintain an open mind without compromising our core beliefs.
Timothy,
First off, I apologize. I’m new to this sort of thing, and arrived on this site when my pastor here was looking for the original statement from Mark Dayton (which had appeared previously as an editorial in our local newspaper). His comments are what I was referring to in my comments about Christian beliefs increasingly being put under the category of hate speech.:
Mark Dayton said …
“There is no love in this constitutional amendment. There’s discrimination and underneath discrimination lies judgment and hatred.
Jesus said also to beware of false prophets and charlatans, the fake good doers. And he said the way to tell the difference is that the true believers practice love, while the false prophets preach hate.
And that’s why this amendment is un-Christian.”
Back to me (Audrey)
I agree fully in God being the judge of people. I have so many short-comings that I have no business judging others. At the same time, though, I still believe in Biblical teaching. I believe there is right and wrong, but I’d rather have the Holy Spirit do the convicting (or the authorities, when appropriate). I also understand that other people may have their own ideas and interpretations of Scripture (and life), and that’s up to them. In my own dealings, I prefer to run away from ‘hate’, while at the same time standing up for my own beliefs.
I don’t really think we are too far apart. In your last paragraph, I believe you are referring to some of the separation of church and state issues. I don’t want the church invoking religious beliefs on me. On the other hand, I’m seeing more and more examples of the Christian faith seeming to be singled out as something almost evil. It seems to me that it’s been going way too far. I’ll mention the legal case of the Bronx Household of Faith renting from NY public schools. It’s getting to the point that people are waving the separation of church and state matter at any mention of something religious, and particularly when it involves Christians. But that’s another subject!
I see I really messed up a statement in my first entry to this site by leaving out two words. Here’s the way I intended it: “The commandment to love God and thy neighbor as thyself is definitely true, but I don’t think it equates with ignoring Scriptural teaching, and thereby endorsing all behavior—in myself or others.”
I’ll close this by saying simply that I truly believe all people (including me) should be treated with respect. Period.
Again, sorry for being so inept at this!
Audrey
In case there’s confusion… I had responded to Audrey and then deleted the post not realizing that she had already seen it and was writing a response. Sorry about that.
David,
I apologize to you as well for my ineptitude with this, and ask that you refer to my comments to Timothy. My first entry was a response to the comments by Mark Dayton. It was not intended to be referring to the other entries here.
I stand by my comments about marriage, as referred to in Matthew 19. I don’t think I’m reading too much into it. Others are free to think differently.
I’m not sure about some of your other points, and I’m not sure if I’m informed enough to comment intelligently about them.
—But I will say that if legislation, public policy, etc. goes to the point of giving special rights to a group, I question that.
—I’m also not certain about the comment referring to the origin of homosexual sexual orientation. It’s my understanding that some of the studies have been seriously questioned as to their vaility. If I fall into the ‘ignorant’ category, so be it.
—I am well aware of how homosexual persons have been treated badly. I was embarrassed hearing of one situation in which a person was totally humiliated in the name of Christianity, and trying to change the person.
—I would like to see traditional marriage protected. Our nation’s history indicates that we were founded on Judeo/Christian principles. In my mind, the verdict is still out as to whether other family definitions result in the best structure for the family, and especially raising children. Yes, there are “traditional marriages” that have had horrible results. But I do think the principles are very solid.
—No, I didn’t feel that other respondents on this site were accusing me of being hateful.
Again, I apologize for my ignorance in the workings of this site!
And again, I believe all people should be treated with dignity and respect!
Audrey, a few things.
1. What do you define as “special rights”?
2. What do you suggest should happen to families who fall outside your definition of Traditional? Should kids (thousands of them now) be removed from their gay parents?
3. How would you protect traditional marriage?
Audrey,
Don’t worry about being inept. We don’t demand perfection.
And you can believe anything you like. Your understanding of Scripture and its application on your life are between you and God.
And I agree that it seems at times that any declaration of faith within public life, no matter how generic, comes under immediate attack. I don’t like that.
However…
I think you may want to re-read your last post. I don’t think the commandments of Christ can be so glibly dismissed.
I don’t mean this as a personal attack on you, Audrey, so please don’t read it that way. But if you choose to decide that holding on to “Scriptural belief” somehow allows you to lobby legislators or take away health insurance you’d better have something pretty firm to stand on. Saying “Scripture calls them a sinner” isn’t going to impress God when it comes to your behavior, not theirs. You can’t justify inhumanity, selfishness about rights and priveleges, looking the other way when people are ill and taking away medical care, or any other of the things it appears that you are justifying by telling God “yeah, but they’re all sinners”. And I realize that you may not do any of these things yourself. But to say that you follow Christ requires that you condemn those who show callousness and self-rightousness every bit as much as you condemn gays.
It’s time to ask yourself if you have ever – at any time – told someone that it was wrong to treat gay people differently than straight people. Because you HAVE come here to tell us we’re wrong. And if haven’t condemned them, you need to ask yourself why.
And of course you should be treated with respect.
But on the day that someone comes to take away your marriage, you can demand the same consideration that you are willing to afford gays. On the day that your sin is condemned in Congress is the same day you can overlook condemning gays. On the day that some local politician says that you are the “wrong kind of people” or that a school board says “we don’t want schoolbooks to mention people like Audrey” or that the governor of Texas says “Audrey can live in some other state”, on that day Audrey, you may have some credibility when it comes to suggesting that you aren’t being respected.
Audrey,
“—But I will say that if legislation, public policy, etc. goes to the point of giving special rights to a group, I question that.”
This directly contradicts your position on marriage. You wish to reserve that special right only to those couples whom you approve.
“In my mind, the verdict is still out as to whether other family definitions result in the best structure for the family”
OK. That’s fine. There are plenty of structures that I think are faulty. For example, I think that girls who marry men twice their age are not the best structure. Nor do I think arranged marriages are the best structure. Nor do I think quicky Vegas marriages are the best structure. Each of these is likely to be a worse structure for family or raising children than a committed gay couple. So on the day that those become illegal, we can begin to discuss why some Christians feel justified in selecting gay people and excluding them.
I think it’s because they can imagine a situation, however remote, that they or their friends might fall into these less than best structures.
But they aren’t gay. So they can simply dismiss the valid claims of gay people.
Unfortunately, they forget the crux of Jesus’ message: Don’t pick on the little guy. Even if he’s a social outcast like a Samaritan.
Good for you! And how will preventing gays from marrying accomplish this?
Utter nonsense. Our history shows something very different–we were founded on Enlightenment principles. I recommend perusing this blog for posts explaining this in great detail. Just for starters, most of the ten commandments are blatantly unconstitutional.
Uh-huh. Well, you cannot be fired for being Christian, but in many places people can be fired for being gay. So do you question your “special right”?
And you can marry the person of your choice, but gay people cannot. Do you question your “special right” in that case, too?
And while we’re talking about Judeo-Christian principles and marriage, I should point out that in Hebrew, “wife” is “ishah”–the same word for “woman”. And “husband” is “baal”–the same word for “owner”. So pronouncing someone “wife and husband” is the same as “woman and owner”. Would you like to make women the property of their husbands in order to reaffirm tradition and religious principles?
I’m home from work now, after stopping for a brief vigil recognizing the one month anniversary of a murder on my block. I think we could agree that someone following a 24 yr old kid, then pulling alongside his car and shooting him repeatedly is not respectful!
I started a response to some of the things you mentioned, but felt there was no useful point, apart from what I have already said. Too much has already been ‘read into’ that. However I will comment on this statement:
“On the day that some local politician says that you are the “wrong kind of people” or that a school board says “we don’t want schoolbooks to mention people like Audrey” or that the governor of Texas says “Audrey can live in some other state”, on that day Audrey, you may have some credibility when it comes to suggesting that you aren’t being respected.”
Senator Mark Dayton (my local politician) has indicated that I am ‘the wrong kind of people’ because I believe in the Bible’s teachings—which he views as “discrimiation, and under that judgment and hatred.” (Jefferson’s comments on a wall of separation of church and state was intended to allow people to be free to have their own religious beliefs without interference from the government. Now that has been reversed). Not only can people like me not be mentioned in schools, but the Bible is banished from school libraries, and teachers try to say that students cannot practice their civil rights in school. I think I have some credibility in saying that I am not being respected. I have said that I don’t feel it’s my place to sit in judgment over others. I do believe in God’s Word (my right to believe), and if His words convict someone, so be it. Since most of the ‘convicting’ I deal with involves my own shortcomings.
I think everyone should be freely able to practice their religious beliefs and am against censorship in schools, libraries, etc. Public policy is a more difficult issue. The government’s function is not to back religion, so I do not think the government should define marriage in the terms of certain Christian groups.
The separation of church and state has always been a contentious issue. Founder’s like Adams tended to be more accommodating of religious expression in the government while others, such as Madison, argued for high walls between the two.
I would like to request that my comments be removed from this site. I note today that something I posted is listed under another name, and comments I did not post are listed under my name. Thank you.
Posted by: Audrey at July 22, 2006 04:31 PM
Audrey,
We don’t alter the names under which people post nor the content unless we plainly state the fact and why (very rare). Please email me directly at david@exgaywatch.com to explain the problem. Thanks.
David Roberts
Audrey at July 22, 2006 04:31 PM
All of the comments on this thread which are labeled “Audrey” other than the one requesting removal came from the same source.
Audrey,
“Senator Mark Dayton (my local politician) has indicated that I am ‘the wrong kind of people’…”
Has indicated? Oh?
Nope. Disagreeing with you is not the same as CALLING you the wrong kind of people.
https://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060715/NEWS02/607150306/1003/EDIT
“Not only can people like me not be mentioned in schools,…”
That simply isn’t true. Where is it that people can’t be MENTIONED in school BECAUSE they are Christians? Yet all over this country school boards don’t want any acknowlegment of gay people and their contributions to be mentioned at all.
“but the Bible is banished from school libraries,…”
Oh? Where? Support this.
You come to this site where people are very aware of daily indignities and inequalities and try to suggest that you are being mistreated because gay people are no longer willing to roll over and let you step on them. You try to translate those thing which put everyone on par as being unfair to you because they take away your advantage. This is the moral equalent of trying to enlist sympathy for slum lords who are required to clean up their properties.
This is selfish and conceited and arrogant and not worthy of you, Audrey. Stop and think for a moment. You’re not an idiot, Audrey, and you know better. You are fully aware that you are not personally subjected to the same level of disrespect as gay people. And to suggest that you are is completely ridiculous.
“I think I have some credibility in saying that I am not being respected.”
No. You don’t. Until you made this post you had some credibility. Now you have none.
I don’t think you’re evil, Audrey, but I think that your posts are packed with pride, fullness of bread, and a reluctance to strengthen the hand of the needy.
I think that you have potential to see things outside of your perspective. But you have to be willing. And you have to let go of the assumptions of privelege.
All of the comments on this thread which are labeled “Audrey” other than the one requesting removal came from the same source.
Yeah, we worked it out. She was confused about which articles belong to which address lines. She is ok with it now. I should have posted a follow up I guess. There is another Audrey who posts on the site, but not on this thread.