-Portugal’s parliament enacts marriage equality.
-Former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) has a change of heart in favor of marriage equality.
-Nate Silver points out that divorce rates have, on average, risen in states with an anti-same-sex marriage amendment and declined in states without one.
-Margaret Talbot takes a closer look at the players in the Prop 8 trial.
-The Gay Christian Network’s 2010 conference draws a record attendance of nearly 400 participants.
-The National Institute of Health solicits public comment on plans to undertake the largest study of LGBT health issues conducted to date.
-A District of Columbia superior court judge rejects a lawsuit demanding a public vote on the marriage equality bill passed by the DC city council.
-Lawyers for the Pentagon recommend a one-year delay in any efforts to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
-Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention joins Pat Robertson in declaring that the earthquake in Haiti was an act of God’s wrath.
“Nate Silver points out that divorce rates have, on average, risen in states with an anti-same-sex marriage amendment and declined in states without one.”
That pretty much shoots a hole through that whole “marriage protection” thing, doesn’t it?
I would suggest amending the statement about Albert Mohler. He did not say that the earthquake in Haiti was a specific result of Haiti’s alleged “wickedness.” Instead, he said that, like all natural disasters, the earthquake is a sign of the Fall (which is, of course, a sign of God’s judgment on sin in general). In fact, he warns several times in the linked article against the kind of “prophesying” that Pat Robertson did when he ridiculously tried to come up with a direct link between Haiti’s spiritual history and the earthquake. Mohler writes:
In short, I think the linked article takes Mohler out of context quite a bit. There is a way to say that earthquakes are inherently wicked and that all natural disasters are a result of the Fall (which, again, is a judgment upon mankind’s sinfulness as a whole), without saying that God specifically struck down Haiti for X, Y, and Z reasons, which is what Pat Robertson tried to do.
How quickly I tire of the arbitrary (yet probably, seductively comforting) harsh black-and-white deity of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Baptist/”Bible-Believing”/”Calvinist”/Non-denominational Christianities. As long as people can claim that “everyone’s a sinner” and “the whole world is gone to shit b/c of the ‘Fall,'” no one need feel any guilt about being so sure of themselves that “the others on the outside” are being punished for not being “on the inside.” I’d rather go to “hell” a Jew than go to “heaven” a victim of Spiritual Genocide.
Well, I guess what I meant to say is that Mohler wasn’t saying that Haiti was being punished for not being “on the inside,” since it’s likely that many Christians also died in the earthquake. It’s a natural disaster like any other. Bad things happen to Christians all the time, while evil does often prosper in this world. I suppose what I meant to say was that when I read Mohler’s article, I saw it as scolding the inappropriateness of Robertson’s remarks, not joining in with them.
Jay- what he was saying was the earthquakes are caused by man’s sinning, because G hates sin. The contrapositive of that statement, if there were no sin there would be no earthquakes, has exactly the same truth value.
I.e., none.
Earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust. Not a shred of evidence or predictive value to mohlers idiotic, anti-intelligent belief. Thse are two of the things we have found to be true about actual knowledge (as opposed to religious megalomania — evidence and predictive value and repeatability.
In Henry VIII’s day, i believe, they thought earthquakes were caused by sodomy. I believe that particular nugget of wisdom found its way into bowers v. hardwicke. The same bowers that later resigned because of his stone-the-bastard adulterous affair assualting holy matrimony.
does that even make any sense?
I have never heard an answer from a Christian– other than a tour-de-force of tautological gymnastics– to this simple question. If the world is so sinful and broken as you believe, how do you know that anything you believe is the truth?
Maybe it is one of Satan’s wily temptations: Your own prophet said “by their fruits shall you know them.”
Catholic buggery, anyone?
I don’t think Mohler — or any Christian — would say that earthquakes are not caused by tectonic plates, just like he wouldn’t say that cancer isn’t caused by abnormal cell growth or that the flu isn’t caused by a virus. The point is that under a Christian theological position, all of those things are a result of the Fall of Man, and thus are a judgment of sin. Thus, viruses, cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. did not exist before Adam and Eve’s sin. I’m not arguing for or against that view. I’m just saying that that view, which is what Mohler was saying, is not the same as what Robertson was saying about Haiti, and shouldn’t be treated as such.
No, it is not the same belief at all. Not at all. no. no no.
But it is just as silly, idiotic, non-testable, non-evidential, non repeatable, and non-predictive. In fact, it actually is exactly the same belief. It’s just dressed in a party frock instead of white summer suit. And there for is as much a useful and acceptable part of the debate.
At least if we’re going to talk about actual knowledge, and not cheap salvation.
Where in the story of the fall is anything about earthquakes, cancer. or any of it? I’m not being facetious here. I’m trying to point out the mohler’s hypothesis, whether it is grand theology or pat roberston zaniness, is utter nonsense theologically, morally, and scientifically. Patty says there are earthquakes because of sin, Mohler says there are earthquakes because of sin. Just because you dress it up in ecclesastical drag and call if grandly “The Fall of Man” doesn’t make it any more valueable or true.
Like Patty, he is making this up, creating it out of whole cloth, because that is his agenda. Buy the product he is selling, and he continues to earn a living and be respected for something besides his fantasy life or his slander of the almighty.
Stop buying the prduct, and the need for the product disappears. Like a penis enlargement pill– salvation at a price you can’t afford.
Exactly what is your goal, then? That everyone believe as you do or shut up if they don’t? As far as I know, nothing that either Mohler and Robertson has said has hindered aid to Haiti, and Mohler, at least, does call for Christians to go and help alleviate the suffering there.
In other words, he’s saying that God doesn’t hate Haiti. Or did you not read that part of the article?
Mohler’s and Robertson’s brand of Christianity believes that if you are good and love God and are sinless then nothing bad will happen to you. As a result, if something bad happens to you then you are not good, do not love God, and are not sinless. They see God as Zeus with the thunderbolt ready to strike at any time. They nake statements like the one Jay quoted – “Christ’s people” meaning the others are NOT Christ’s people. The saint saving the sinner syndrom. There is an alternative motive at play when they “help.” They don’t help because Christ commanded his followers to do so, they help because they think they are “IT” and the rest of the world is “IT” with an “SH” in front of it.
If a Christian or any other religious body helps others, according to Christ, they just do so because it is the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with the situation of both parties involved; it is just the right thing to do.
Thanks, alan. That is what I was going to say.
Jay– no, I don’t want people to believe as I do or shut up. I actually think that people like mohler and Patty are absolutely free to think and say whatever they like, no matter now nonsensical, wrong headed, and destructive it may be. Actually, what I want is for them to THINK, to act compassionately in a way that doesn’t feel like an assault to the object of their compassion, and that doesn’t feel like a search for heavenly brownie points instead of mere human compassion.
Harry Ball, my very wise professor of sociology, once told me “You never do anything for someone else. You do it for yourself. You do it TO someone else.” Though I insisted in my youthful idealism that this must not be true, from a sociological point of view, it’s quite accurate.
This is another form of spiritual arrogance for Mohler and Patty: the certainty that not only do they know the difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner, fighting the sin and fighting the sinner, but that they also are qualified to determine the nature of my sin, Satan, and the forces of evil. Thus tectonic plates become the avatar of sin in the world. nonsense.
there is a disconnect between moralizers and theologists, while at the same time, they seemed to be joined at the hip.
Did you even read Mohler’s article, Alan? He says repeatedly that bad things happen to good people all the time, and that bad people often prosper. In fact, he warns several times in the article that we must not see God in the way that you are describing.
So in other words, it doesn’t matter how much aid or money or time they give to people in Haiti, if they don’t say what you want them to say while doing it, then it doesn’t really count and they aren’t really being compassionate.
Jay, yes I did read the entire article from its original source. And while Mohler may believe bad things happen to good people, for his brand of Christianity he subscribes to the belief that they are “tests” and “temptations” from the devil. The Christian who has bad things happen to him or her are being hit from outside forces – they are not at fault because they are already “saved.” A non-Christian or a Catholic (as he points out in his article that Haitians are Catholic therefore members of an occult: “The nation is known for voodoo, sorcery, and a Catholic tradition that has been greatly influenced by the occult.”) IS at fault for anything bad happening to them, according to his theology, because they do NOT subscribe to his form of Christianity.
On the surface, Christians on par with Mohler providing aid to Haiti is a good thing, but they always have strings attached to their “compasion.”
First – they believe they are superior and are helping a lesser person.
Second – the food, clothing, donations, etc. come with a price – conversion, or at the very least, drawn out sermons, tent revivals, bibles, home visits to force conversion, etc. Trust me, I know, I see it all the time when I visit relatives in Mexico. The game is played all over the world in third world nations.
Third – it is for personal gain. Christ said, “Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand does,” but Mohler and the like advertize their “compassion” all over the place. Only God needs to know are good deeds, not the world.
So to say they are “compassionate” I’d say they are compassionate with strings attached.
I really don’t think you understood the article if you think that your first paragraph is correct. That, or you simply don’t understand Christianity. He specifically said that we can’t make judgments as to why the earthquake hit Haiti. He also never said anything about “tests” or “temptations.” I think you are reading into it, and have a bias against Christians. If that’s the case, then own it, and I’ll respect it, but don’t read things that aren’t there.
The quake in Haiti is the results of ongoing plate techtonics movements that have been in place for about 4 billion years when this planet first formed. That was billions of years before humans came into being, the birth of Jesus Christ and the creation of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions. It was bilions of years before the birth of voodoo, the Haitian overthrow of their French oppressors or the rise of the Religious Right in the US.
The reason for all the deaths in Haiti is due to poverty. Earthquake prone areas that are rife with poverty have poor building codes and construction. Similar quakes in the US and Japan kill many people and can devestate entire areas, but scale of the loss of human life doesn’t compare to Haiti.
Jay said:
I would prefer that people would do this, rather than acting like they *might* stand for some semblance of religious plurality on one site (here) whilst declaring outright that no one can be TRULY “at peace” without Jesus on a different one (Randy Thomas’). Sounds like what Alan Chambers does with the “1000s of ex-gays” vs. “100s of 1000s of ex-gays” statistic, depending on which media outlet is paying attention. Jay’s got a lot more in common with Mohler and Robertson than he will admit.
I don’t think I would deny my beliefs about Christ, either here or on my blog. I simply don’t bring them up here. After all, this site does a good job about not being a place to attack others for their beliefs. In fact, most of the articles here aren’t about theology, but about individual rights and freedoms, things we can all agree on despite our religious differences.
I do stand for religious plurality in the sense that I think that we can all find a way to live peacefully and freely in a society together. I don’t stand for religious plurality in the sense that I think all religions are equal or true. I do consider myself a conservative Christian, and as such I do think that Chris is the way, the truth, and the life. I am sorry for any confusion. I’m not going to bring up or discuss my personal religious beliefs here in any more detail because, quite simply, that’s not what this site is about.
Um, I meant “Christ,” not “Chris.” Quite obviously, I don’t worship guys named Chris.
Just so we’re clear, Jay has announced he is on the side of Robertson and Mohler, in that the Haitians who are not yet Christians are bound for their own Hell anyway, so their only “hope for peace” is to turn to those missionaries that are also there trying to help for “salvation.” Sounds like Jay’s (and Roberton’s, and Mohler’s) god has rained his judgment upon the non-Christian (or Catholic occult) people of Haiti quite clearly. What an ugly mindset. I pity a person whose need to feel “spiritually superior” causes them to subscribe to such a philosophy. Such thoughts – thoughts of superiority, of being above others, and of being “right” – are exactly what lead to genocide. It makes people feel okay for being complacent. Holocausts don’t happen because bad people murder others. They happen because otherwise “good” people are tricked into thinking such destruction is part of the “correct order.”
For example, demanding that everyone drop any religious, philosophical, or spiritual experiences/beliefs that they have for an arbitrary Trinitarian salvation belief. Sounds a lot like when straights or confused “ex-gays” do all in their power to insist that gays “convert” to being straight, because they’ll never know peace or happiness being what they already are.
How medieval.
I think if I wanted to feel superior, I wouldn’t be a Christian, of all things. I don’t think attacking my faith, and specifically attacking it by bringing up comments that I made on another blog about another subject entirely, is really appropriate. I respect you and I hope you have a good evening.
Jay said:
I understood the article in light of what I know about Southern Baptist theology. That I don’t understand Christianity is a vaild point – I may understand it only to what I have been exposed to or studied. From that, I know that there are as many brands of Christianity as there are people.
For certain brands of Christianity I do, but certainly not the entire umbrella of Christian sects, as I do of other faiths. As a Christian I have a problem with those who assert that one needs to conform to my understanding of having a relationship with God in order to be rewarded by God.
The problem I have with saying things like a tragedy is part of God’s wrath is that it goes against everything I understand and believe about God. I have a bigger problem when Christian leaders declare that, adhere to that belief, and insist their followers susbscribe to that mindset.
If God is “mad” at anyone, in my understanding of God, she would be more “upset” at us, Americans, who have it good and yet have no problem with letting people live in horrid conditions like Hatians before the quakes and justifying it by saying they are devil-worshippers so they deserve what they get.
These same “compassionate” preachers have said the same things about people who died of AIDS. So many “Christians” threw their sons and daughters out in the streets and believed they were doing God’s will.
As Emily said,
Alan said:
I ‘d like to add that generally, those who insist the loudest that “the greatest love and peace cannot truly be known without my specific relationship to my specific deity” are the ones with the greatest lack of inner peace and love. So they compensate by insisting that everyone else’s “love and peace” is actually counterfeit, even though they themselves are feeling a great void in that area. It’s just that declaring loudly how “great” their inner peace and love is with their religion comforts them, even if it is far from the truth.
I find this true with ex-gays, too. Ex-gays who have the loneliest most unfulfilling lives yell the loudest about how they’ve “never been happier, now know true peace and love; etc.” because it’s the only thing they know and the only thing they can take comfort in. Otherwise it feels like it’s all been a waste; a failure. It’s a pity that others need to feel better about themselves by claiming a position of superiority.