thomascwaters.com

The linked letter to the editor is a good illustration of both where we currently are, and what is wrong with the debate over Gay Rights when we confront the religious argument. The question, isn’t, “Is the Bible Clear” or even “What does the Bible say” but rather, the right question is, “what relevance, if any should the Bible have when it comes to civil law and what rights people deserve?” If we live in a democracy that is based, even in part on a separation of Church and State, then what the Bible does or doesn’t say, no matter how clearly, just isn’t relevant today, in 2009 American government and politics. Period.

A common knee-jerk reaction to the use of the Bible as the authoritative source for government, is to counter that Jesus was all about Love, etc. And maybe in the context of a Sunday School class, that might be an interesting discussion, but in terms of laws- and what rights people should have today in 2009 America, it is a trap. The only useful response to any Biblical argument is to counter that the Bible is not relevant in the ways we craft laws and protect people or grant them rights.

The Bible was the source of justification for condemning Galileo when he claimed that the earth moved around the sun. The more we learn from Science, we will again and again, come up against the Bible as an authoritative source. And I’m not anti-Bible at all. I am however, against the bible being used as a basis for how we legislate and protect the rights of people. I think there is plenty of great stuff in that book, but our civil system of governance isn’t the place for it.

The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior as well as types of heterosexual behavior such as fornication, adultery, incest etc. are immoral and things Christians should overcome.

via Bible clear on homosexuality | BlueRidgeNow.com | Times-News Online | Hendersonville, NC.

UK Police to Preacher: It’s a Crime to Call Homosexuality a “Sin”

A few months ago, the Westboro Baptist Church was here in Pittsburgh protesting a number of things, but one was about protesting the funeral of Catherine Baker Knoll’s funeral. She had supposedly been involved in some law that influences street preachers. My original idea for Queer Look at the Bible was to develop a “preacher character” who used the street corner in a style lie the fire and brimstone type of preacher, but preached from the Bible as if it were a queer positive book. Preaching is 30% interpretation and 70% performance, so why not utilize a queer positive interpretation and pay it up?

But I’m getting off track. The linked blog is about a Glasgow street preacher who feels his free speech rights are being taken from him. He claims that the police are saying that to call homosexuality a sin is a crime. This preacher is doing more than a 30% interpretation! The police are saying that to say that  on a public street corner is offensive, and that is the problem.

If preachers and Bible thumpers want to rail on and on about homosexuality, in their church, go right ahead and do it. Just keep that vitriolic speech out of the public square, where all people- those who are believers and those who are not have a right to be in peace.

Now, I’m not saying I personally am for all the anti-gay rhetoric even in a church, but that is the place where it belongs, and there, preachers ought to be able to deliver their interpretation of the Bible as they believe is right. There is a reason why greater numbers of people are leaving the churches- because the church is still using an old “text” as it if is the most relevant guidelines for modern life.

So the preacher just wants free speech. Interestingly, the blog this came from does not accept comments. So much for free speech?

Slice of Laodicea » Blog Archive » UK Police to Preacher: It’s a Crime to Call Homosexuality a “Sin”.

Saw this on Pam’s House Blend. Cool video, spread it around! The video does a great job of characterizing the impact of CA Prop 8, although I’m not sure if this is what would/will really happen. The conservatives with power are not really interested in religious adherence even when they claim their Bible as the rationale for their anti-gay crusade. They hypocritically trot it out when it serves their interest, but they are happy to turn a blind eye when it is straight people who act counter to their literal interpretations.

YouTube – The Defenders (2009).

Pulled this yesterday off of Twitter, but never got around to actually posting. While it deals with extremely old news, I think it is useful info today, as Cheney is being so vocal trying to protect the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse.

queerjohn shared http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/25/report-bush-told-french-president-jacques-chirac-that-iraq-war-was-biblically-ordained-with-story-of-gog-and-magog/.

I almost blogged this under my Queer Look at the Bible blog, but will just link it instead. Below is a blog entry and thread of comments about transgenderism. This is applicable to many of the posts I’ve made recently, as some of the arguments against full equality nondiscrimination legislation attacks the coverages for transfolk. Certainly, transgender is something less understood in mainstream culture, but  these protections are tremendously important.

My reply, printed here follows a pastor’s reply and another commenter as well.

My words:

I appreciate parts of Zoe’s response. So much of our understanding of Gender is based on my anatomy. I personally have no clue how to separate my understanding of my own gender identity from my awareness of my anatomical body, but I have spoken to enough transgendered people over time to accept that their sense of gender identity is not aligned with their body. So, I’m left believing that sometimes gender issues are expressed in anatomical anomalies that are easy to see with the eye, and sometimes the anomalies are not easy to see, but real none-the-less.
I don’t personally need it all to align to the Bible. As much as the Bible is a tremendously important source of spiritual strength, it isn’t the “end all” when it comes to Science. Fir instance, the Bible was used as the proof that Galileo was wrong, remember? Or as the theologian, Kristor Stendahl expressed when proof of water in the form of fossilized crystals was found on Mars, “God is a lot bigger than any of us imagined.”

In my view, the pastor, and those that hold up the Bible as if it were to be taken literally,  minimalize God, and trivialize the value of Faith by requiring all of God’s creation to fit into a book of inspired writings that humans, over time, decided what would be included and what would not.

A.E.Brain: Today’s Battles.

Update: Since  I started writing this post, I have read that the bill passed the House! http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429

I watched C-SPAN for a bit today as they “discussed” the Federal Hate Crimes legislation. On the one hand, I can’t even believe this one is a struggle, and on the other hand it is no surprise given the level of BS flying around about GLBTQ issues. So I heard someone speaking against the legislation state that a pastor in Sweden was arrested for giving a sermon because of Hate Crimes laws, and that is an example of why this legislation is a horrible idea for the United States. I had never heard of this case, so I googled it.

Depending upon your source (a few are below) in 2004, Ake Green was concerned for the moral health for the people of his little community, so he prepared a sermon about the bible and Homosexuality. Except- few people showed up to hear his sermon, so he published it in the newspaper. He described the Sin of Sweden as being like the Sin of Sodom, and called homosexualty a cancerous tumor on society.

The hate speech law in Sweden was written specifically with speech against Jews in mind, but in more recent times was amended to include sexual orientation. And Green was convicted and given a 1 month jail sentence which he appealed. THIS is the case that one of our US representatives was holding up as proof as to why the fully inclusive Matthew Shepard Act was so bad. The problem with that is that the Matthew Shepard Act does not include any provision for speech, but is focused on felony action.

The other problem with this was the result of the arrest. Yes, Green was arrested and convicted, but on appeal it was overturned. In other words, the system worked for this guy! The legal system worked exactly as it should. First there was a sensitivity to the members of the community that led to an arrest. But in the courts, his rights were also totally protected. It is possible to say that he shouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. I can’t find the full text of his sermon, but my guess is he said a bit more than “cancerous tumor on society.” The conservative and christian media are the only sources I can find about it, and like the American Family Association, not everything read there is truthful or without exaggeration.

So a case goes to court- there is a ruling. It is appealed, and the ruling is overturned. When it is in favor of the conservatives, it is hailed as a righteous decision. On the other hand, when it is overturned against the conservatives, the judges are ridiculed as being activist judges. Why is that?

Concerned Women for America – Swedish Court Overturns Pastor’s ‘Hate Crime’ Conviction.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx

As nice as it seems to read that “no circumstance should any Christian attack the character of a person who claims to be homosexual,” the opinions expressed here are little different in content and not that different in tone. There are a few fundamental comments that I’d like to make.

1) Through out history, the bible has served as the basis for many decisions about things. An earlier example was the way that Galileo was condemned for suggesting (correctly) that the Earth moved around the Sun instead of the other way. In more recent history, the Bible has been used to support slavery, and the oppression of women. The Bible was used as the basis to oppose inter-racial marriages. To use the Bible as the basis for any argument is counterproductive to the health and well being of our society. The Bible’s rightful place is use within a religious community, not within the framework of public policy.

2) In our current culture, Marriage has two parts. There is a Civil part where a marriage license is issued by the government and bestows on the couple a set of rights, priveleges and obligations of a legal nature. The other part is for some couples a religious ceremony. We have culturally come to understand these as one thing, when in reality they are not. One is about the legal side of marriage, and the other is about the religious side. Couples do, even today, enjoy one as opposed to both. I know same sex couples who have had ceremonies in a church, presided by a minister, but who lack the legal part of the marriage license. I know straight couples who have been marriage by a justice of the peace and have not had a religious ceremony. The Iowa decision and al other Marriage Equality actions are designed to provide only the legal side of marriage. No religious denomination has to begin to perform same-sex religious ceremonies unless they want to. So this legal decision does not intrude on religious beliefs in any way. It does however draw the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Some are afraid that this will trivialize marriage, but in reality if it does anything it is the exact opposite. It provides another avenue to recognize long lasting committed relationships. For example, my partner and I have been together for 10 years. Additionally straight society has been trivializing marriage for years through the high divorce rate, and through such gimmicky marriages as the proverbial Las Vegas marriage by Elvis.

3) It is incorrect to claim that Iowa has been thrown into an “out-of-control tailspin.” In fact there has been no change in Iowa overall. The only possible change has been an activation by many to attempt to codify bigotry into law. Because of the way Iowa’s government is structured, it isn’t as easy for mob rule as it was in California, so those who oppose equality are working extremely hard to create chaos because there is no other way to derail progress.

4) It is an outright lie to claim that “someone like me (a Pastor) may in the future face criminal prosecution for not being willing to perform a same-sex marriage.” It is appalling first because it is such an outrageous claim, and second because lying is a sin and as a pastor you ought to know better. The law as passed only provides Civil Marriage to same-sex couples. Nothing more.

Lastly, all I can say is that it is offensive to me to read that “homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle.” This remark suggests that you really don’t know much about gay, and lesbian people. Is this not an attack upon my character- something you spoke against at the beginning? There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle.” Nor is there anything about my life, my relationship with the man I love or the way we participate in society,than my heterosexual neighbors. My ancestors arrived a year after the Mayflower to Plymouth Colony. They came here to flee religious persecution in England and Europe, and our country formed with a sound basis of the separation of church and state. We live in a democracy and not a theocracy. Our governmental structure has been formed over time, and developed to assure a check and balance system to act in ways that are best for all and still protect the rights of the minority.

Masterpastor’s Blog: Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa.

Warren apologizes for support of California’s marriage amendment

The above headline is the original headline for the linked article. It is something I almost passed over unread. Rick Warren isn’t that interesting to me, but the claim of his supposed apology pulled me in for a read.

Now, I have watched some clips of the Larry King interview, and my take on Warren isn’t quite the same as Fischer’s. I didn’t take it so much as an apology as it was Warren’s attempt to paint himself as less of an evil homophobe. He really got raked over the coals- rightly or wrongly- and now he is trying to get back to what was his real agenda all along. Granted he was never very pro-gay, but in my opinion, he never deserved the intense backlash he received either.

But the guy is really in a bind, as would be any pastor who holds the Bible up as the last word on anything. Many theologians have over time seen this black hole, but now in 2009, today’s evangelicals are falling into it at an alarming rate. Even the Jewish faith, has since the beginning (???) known that the Bible required interpretation- that’s what Midrash is all about. It is truly a fool who believes that every word of it can be taken literally. Much wiser are those who see it as a starting point, and take from it ideas and meanings integrated with thought, science, history and experience. But that really is another post.

This ultimate confrontation to the Bible is pretty new. It isn’t like same-sex marriage is the first social change where the Bible seems irrefutable. How about Slavery? How about divorce? But here we are in 2009, and the ultra right wing fundamentalists see this as a last stand. I’m working on another blog post about that, hopefully for tomorrow.

But now, two things are happening:

1) People like Warren, who wish to work within the religious arena for social change, are having to come face to face with these contradictions. As the number of Americans who are involved in Religion continues to drop, people like him are scrambling to remain viable and meaningful.

2) Many average people are being willing to stand up and say that we do not live in a Christian  theocracy! We live in a democracy where there is a separation of church and state.

Warren apologizes for support of California’s marriage amendment.

Dear Greg,

Glad to have the opportunity to read your post. I just want to offer a few points for thought.

1) I really don’t think that the “LGBT segment is rapidly growing.” There have always been (and will always be) men and women who are LGBT. What is changing, is that these men and women are coming out and being more visible than ever before. We are refusing to be quiet and hide in the shadows, and pretend about our lives anymore. Some of us haven’t been quiet for a long time, and still others continue to lead double lives, passing as straight so as to not be fired from their job, etc. I think however it is a safe bet that visibility will increase. It isn’t like we are getting “new gays” at a faster rate, just that those who identify as gay and doing that, and speaking out more publicly.

On the other hand, it may be easier for youth to come out earlier today than ever before. Many people of my generation were not aware of their sexual orientation, or actively fought it for years before it felt safe to be gay. This had many bad side-effects, and that discussion probably warrants a separate post. Kids today may feel safer, and definitely have more positive gay and lesbian role models, and so may come out earlier and easier.

2) There is no such thing as “The Gay Lifestyle” as if it is what all GLBT people do. Just as there is no monolithic straight lifestyle. I’m sure your lifestyle and that of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears are not alike. Would you describe yourself and Paris as living the same lifestyle?

3) There is also no such thing as “The Gay Agenda” unless you call the desire to live in peace and dignity with equal rights an agenda. Thank you for saying so clearly, “the gay community deserves protection against violence, discrimination and tyranny. The right to live safe in this nation and indeed the world should be a proprietary human right.”

4) I don’t think it is true that the nation participated in a wide open debate on gay rights in the last election. If anything the lid was blown off the debate, such that real dialogue began only because of the outcome of the election. Now, today, is when the largest national dialogue is happening. It is also not entirely true to say “Most of the voters said YES” to Prop 8. While there were more Yes than no votes, the percent difference was not very big! It is more honest to say that the state was almost evenly divided and the Yes votes had a very slight edge. Some polls suggest that if the vote was held today, it would go the opposite way. But either way, the state is very divided on this issue, and even a simple majority- enough to pass a prop doesn’t signify “most.”

5) Our Country was founded by pilgrims who left England and Europe to escape religious persecution. My own family tree links to the Sprague family that arrived at Plymouth Colony the year after the Mayflower. They sought, and our brave new world was founded on a basis of Freedom of Religion. But Freedom of Religion is not the same as the ability to force one’s personal religious views upon all others. That is a religious tyranny similar to what my ancestors left to come here. Your ancestors as well as mine both experienced and perpetuated horrific crimes against humanity in the formation and growth of this country- what we are so proud of and are working to uphold today. This is worth thinking about as this dialogue over gay rights continues.

6) I respect your faith and strongly support your freedom to worship as you see fit. Ultimately, it is God who will judge each of us on our actions or lack there of. As a Gay man and a Christian, I am fully ready to stand before my Maker and have no doubt that he will deem my life as moral and acceptable.

7) However, it really irritates me when the Bible is used as the weapon to suggest that my life is immoral by people who claim that we must uphold the Bible at all cost! Where was this same ferocious vigor when the issue of Divorce was raised? Even in Covenant Marriages, divorce is allowed under certain circumstances, yet the words of Jesus are pretty clear, that divorce is a no-no. Those who use a few Bible passages but forget others are hypocrites if they do not apply the same standard to all areas of our culture. I do not think they mean to be hypocritical. I think it is more like the apostle Paul who came to recognize that he was wrong to be persecuting the Christians of his time, and changed his mind about many things.

And folks like you, who write so eloquently about human rights and yet hold to the myth of a “gay lifestyle” simply need to get to know more real gay people. Get to know them by name, and really care about their lives. Share a meal with a gay or lesbian raising children. See them as individuals instead of as stereotypes.

There is more to say, but this is plenty for one day. Again, thanks for your post.

http://kinghannibal.livejournal.com/5215.html?view=351#t351

The basis of the opinion linked below is the decision by a TV channel not to air an anti-gay propaganda program sponsored by the American Family Association (AFA). The AFA claimed that the TV special would “reveal the truth about the radical homosexual agenda and its impact on the family, the nation, and religious freedom.” Lozon believes that this was a denial of the 1st amendment. He writes:

Free speech is free speech, no matter how offensive and uncomfortable it may be.

His interest seems genuinely rooted in free speech, for he does not seem to have positive things to say about the AFA, or other similar groups. He calls them hysterical. He believes that homosexuals (his language):

should ignore the righteous rants of the religious right and instead focus on the legal battles that need to be waged on the federal and state levels to guarantee their full civil rights under the Constitution, which mandates that laws be applied equally to everyone.

From my perspective, this is an important argument to consider. He would hold that all sides of a debate deserve to be heard, a position that I agree with. He writes:

Until sexual orientation is no longer an issue and all marriages are recognized as equal under the law, everyone in the debate has a right to be heard — even the sanctimonious souls on the religious right.

However. here is the underlying issue, as long as lies are projected and the GLBT community is wrongly portrayed, we are not likely to see the full acceptance he speaks about. So how does a culture balance free speech and a requirement for fair or truthful rhetoric?

Free speech is Free Speech

I disagree with Lozon that anything is free speech, and I think the writers of the Constitution may agree, and there is plenty of legal background about what is or isn’t free speech. But starting with the medium, it is hard to see paid TV as being free speech. If an individual wants to stand on a street corner and spout off whatever they want- fine by me! If you want to express your opinion  in other forums where opinions are expressed, fine by me. But presenting something as factual and truthful when it is neither, especially when it is harmful to others, crosses the line. A choice not to air lies and misrepresentations is not censorship.

Did WOOD-TV cave in?

Lozon asserts this, but I question if it is true. I was unable to find any statement by the station to that effect. My guess would be that the station reviewed the program and determined that there was either a chance that the claims made in the program were unsupported and inflamatory, or outright untrue. Speech can be a weapon and using it to cause damage, is a very different purpose than to use it to give voice to one’s opinion and ideas.

Antiquated Biblical Arguments

Lozon writes, “I fully support the right of these groups to publicize their antiquated Biblical arguments…” and so do I! But messages like the program which was not aired on WOOD-TV hasd little to do with a Biblical message (that may or may not be antiquated depending upon your religious beliefs). It is a very different message to say “The Bible says this…” and to say things such as “Homosexuals want to destroy your family.”

Hate Speech

I think rightfully, Lozon is leery of the notion of hatespeech. On the one hand, if we as a contry promote free speech, what is hate speech? On the otherhand, it is easy to see how destructive speech can be. This question, what is hate speech, and what are simply lies and misinformation is one that we as a culture must address. Would Lozon be so quick to speak up in support for a White Supremicist program as free speech? Or if someone made a program attacking the Pope?

Lozon concludes

Someday, we will look back on this dispute over the civil rights of gays as one of those embarrassing moments in our nation’s history, similar to how we reflect on the struggles for equality by black people and women.

I truly hope this is the case, however if we are ever to get there, we must recognize how messages are used, and hold media distribution channels, like television accountable for airing truthful, accurate, and useful information. While we must place utilize the legislative process to advance equal rights, we, as individuals participate in te democratic process by giving voice to our own individual truths and protesting events that perpetuate lies and msinformation is nothing more than free speech.

COLUMN – Gays and lesbians seek to have equal rights – Holland, MI – The Holland Sentinel.