Fair and Balanced Reporting
Posted On Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at at 5:40 PM by Pastor MikeThis was in this evening's News Gazette opinon section. Sort of a religious relativist's view with an appeal to the Constitution as an absolute authority. Enjoy
Rev. Jenkins' reply (Mar. 2) to my Feb. 20 letter demonstrates the truth of
my statement: there are disagreements among Christian denominations concerning
biblical interpretations. Sometimes they are minor, sometimes quite large. In
fact, many churches welcome homosexuals into their congregations, even into
their clergy. I think it's wonderful we live in a country that makes room for us
all.
Please forgive me if my earlier letter made it appear as if I wished to
change the personal beliefs of others; that is not the case. Certainly if a
denomination chooses to not bless homosexual unions within its own organization,
that is their right, and I support it even though I disagree.
But to deny homosexuals the right to union based on religious beliefs is contrary to our constitution.
Our country was founded in part on the concept of freedom to choose
one's religion without coercion or force. To force upon our society a single
mindset based on religion is to create a theocracy. One need only look at
today's world to see how dangerous a theocracy can be. There are indeed many different views on the Bible, and varying translations. Who would deny that King James caused the Bible to be edited?
Or that there are dozens of Protestant versions of the Bible? That the
Catholic Bible is different from the King James and subsequent versions?
Personally, I am thankful our country allows us all to choose for
ourselves. I believe that all should be treated equally under the law,
including homosexuals. I also believe that Jesus would approve.
REV. LANE BALDWIN
Tilton
I will not respond to this letter. He is a lightweight who’s not even sticking up for his views. If a view is wrong, then it is wrong and it needs to be stopped. Furthermore, he’s using a strawman who meets are red herring here. KJV debate…come on.
.jpg)
Well, the Constitution also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, yet the Bible OT calls for the stoning of homosexuals. Since God is commonly believed to have commanded this at one time, it is impossible for God to have uncommanded it. Anyhow, in some cases you just have to go with the Constitution rhather than with the Bible and this homosexuality thing is one of those times.
Yes...the wonderful Constitution—that great document that approves of mutilating babies, sucking their brains out just before birth, and scrambling them from within. What determines one's right to pursue happiness?
I assure you, the Constitution can be used in an unfriendly manner. And if it is our absolute source of truth…we are truly in trouble.
Mike - no one proposes the Constitution as an "absolute" source of truth (or even law). This is self-evident in that it can me amended!
The Bible has no function for "amending". However, it is so unclear that there are millions of possible interpretations.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want. You are out of line when you expect others to believe the same thing. At least you are out of line if you choose to be a citizen of THIS country.
If you don't love the beauty of a constitutional society, then you should go to one that reflects the values you cherish. That might be hard to find though. I'm not sure there are any societies on earth that are run according to Biblical (Holy Bible - Old and New Testaments)law and if there are, they might be a country that interprets the scriptures differently from you. That's been known to happen among Christians.
Hey, they might even demand that you give up all your worldly possessions and follow Christ while dedicating yourself to those less fortunate than you, even leaving behind your wife and Children if they disagree. Sound vaguely familiar?
You are welcome to believe whatever you want. You are out of line when you expect others to believe the same thing.
Which is it, can I believe what I want (which includes believing its ok to expect others to believe the same thing) or can I not? This sentence commits suicide.
I got the scars to prove I love this country, I just don’t appeal to the constitution (as this rev. did) as my absolute source. It’s a good document and I believe one of the best gov.s ever set up.
As to your last…I’m pretty much there.
Which is it, can I believe what I want (which includes believing its ok to expect others to believe the same thing) or can I not?
It's a nuanced proposition.
You can BELIEVE whatever you want. You can even BELIEVE that you should be able to expect others to believe the same. But when we move away from beliefs and into intentionality in the world, you are not allowed to ACT on things you believe if they interfere in the free choice of others who are also acting on their beliefs in the same spirit of non-interference.
You can believe that non-Caucasian people are better left to themselves. You can believe it's better for all concerned not to interact with them. You are even allowed to cloister yourself in a small community of only white people. But if a black person decides to drive through your community, you can not block access. You can not refuse medical attention. You can not even refuse to sell available land.
(The above example assumes that the entire community is not built on private property. But even there, you could not, for example, block such people from buying up abutting properties).
Certainly there are complexities in the belief/action arena, and it's exactly why we are so much better off as Homo sapiens to live according to laws arrived at through reason and rationality, rather than through anyone's interpretations of holy texts.
And while you are "allowed" to believe anything you want... that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Living according to aggregation of ancient sayings and laws and doing so with an absolutist mentality about their righteousness is an absolutely terrible way to conduct your life. But you are are allowed to believe otherwise.
Notice, though, that it's only under a secular constitutional system that you are so allowed. Were the system run by religious dogma, there would be no choice offered. In such a system, if your own dogma didn't correspond with the ruling dogma - you'd be in deep doo-doo.
I'd advocate sucking a baby's brains out before it's born, sure. I wouldn't, however, kill an adult in a painful manner though. The difference is in complexity, the adult's brain is much more complex than the baby's brain is. There is also the communal relation factor too, an adult has more meaningful bonds with more people than an unborn baby does. Maybe God cares about the unborn, but to everybody else they are worthless unless they are decidedly prized. A newborn, well, can at least be put up for adoption legally which is because that newborn has no truly meaningful relationships unless the parent wants it to.
I have to say that I find it disturbing that we would suck the brains out of a fetus that is well past the point of viability. That said, I also find it disturbing that we raise baby cows in a tightly enclosed cage, with no room to move and denied even sunlight, only to slaughter it for veal. And THAT said, "disturbed" is not the word I would use for the murder of a living human being.
By the way Mike, have you ever noticed that when you refer to abortion, you use the worst-case to make your point, when the vast majority of all abortions occur long before viability? Why is it you never talk about sucking a few hundred undifferentiated cells out of a 15 year old girl who doesn't want a baby?
Or why don't you avidly defend the "rights" of the dozens of fertilized eggs that go unused every time a nice Christian couple visits a fertility clinic? I'm guessing that there are more "murders" of these "babies" than from all abortions. See, I would agree that this is a non-problem, but it just seems extremely hypocritical to fight against abortion clinics, but not fertility clinics.
But most Christians take this hypocrisy a step further. Not only do they not protest the fertility clinics "murder", but they stand in the way of those cells being used in medical research. So they can be disposed of, but not utilized?
Emo,
I speak in the “worst” case scenario because it still resonates. Fact is, brain sucking operations still disturb you, and it should, but destroying babies when they aren’t “viable” doesn’t. I still find the latter as equally disturbing...but I view them as a life you dont. Quantum doesnt view the late termed baby as a life (I assume). He's no different then you...just has a different view on when that baby is a viable human.
As to denying lifesaving research because we oppose creating life to destroy it for the benefits of others…bull. Umbilical stem cell research is just as promising and doesn’t cross the line. Nevertheless, I would never approve of creating a life to help another (if that life is going to be destroyed). As abortion has taken that long slippery slope slide, so too will the creation of life to save/help.
Quantum,
Man I respect your brutal honesty, but man are you cold.
Babies aren't for people whom have different aspirations for their lives, birth control is for those people. Of course that doesn't always work 100% of the time, and sometimes it's necessary to get an abortion. In that case, I believe the sooner the better. It is foolish to let everybody know your girlfriend is pregnant and then to kill the baby at birth, in my opinion the abortion should have been carried out ASAP in those situations and without everybody even knowing about the pregnancy. If somebody wants to do that though, they can feel the shame of doing that assuming there is any, although I don't see the advantage of judging people after they have already done something.