www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

Dear Administrator,

I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that I was shocked by President Bush's comments. I said that I was frightened by them and that I worry when the President of the United States pronounces on the sinfulness of things.

I speak of course in the context the late 20th -early 21st century. I learned that the ideas and approaches used by politicians are expressed in the terms of their times.

As someone else has noted, the times have changed.

Frankly, I do not understand why more persons who are committed to their churches do not react when the president in this increasingly secular time makes pretense to religious leadership. Has the president been granted some form of religious teaching authority? Has he been authorized by anyone to chastise sinners? Has he been granted the power of the keys to determine who is or is not a sinner? He is a civil leader, not a religious one.

He can say many things about passing a law forbidding homosexual marriage from happening or from being recognized on the federal level. He can give many reasons.

I repeat that I object to his couching his reasons in terms of loving the sinners and hating sin. That scares the daylights outta me.

The reasons for my concern I have share elsewhere. I think I've expressed them clearly and I've not heard anything here which has given me reason to change them. I am open to that.

I agree with you that it is abundantly clear that in the civil arena the citizens of this country seem to be abandoning Judeo-Christian ethics as the norm for determining what should or should not be made criminal behavior.

That is precisely one reason that I am urging that we Christians look to find ways to butress the point when we propose that what we believe to be immoral should also be made a crime. We have to learn to express the reasons for a marriage protection form gays act (by the way, didn't President Clinton sign an act like that?) in terms that are convincing to non-religious citizens or even fellow believers who disagree with us.

(Some Christian Churches, if I understand correctly, are quite accepting of homosexuals who lead an sexually active life, like it or not. Members of those Churches vote. Do we just write them off or tell them that we've got it right they got it wrong? Or, do we find some combination of arguements that will work?)

I have not rejected religiously based morality as one of the factors that we should use to pursue legislation that is appropriate. What I have consistently said is that we cannot base arguements for legislation solely on the basis of religiously based morality. It simply won't get us to where the Church wants us to be.

I suggest that the legislative process is functioning quite well. It is reacting to the abandonment that you and I have just chatted about. Bemoaning that fact that it needs other reasons beside the Judeo-Christian ethic for acting does not mean that a simpler time will return.

In this secular society, we must work harder and smarter.

We take each issue and gauge the need and gather the arguements. Keeping Paedophilia illegal should not be too difficult. We prepare so that we're ready for a challenge there. Raising the possibility that Paedophilia will become legal as part of arguements against criminalizing same sex sexual activity in the home is a bit of crying wolf, it seems to me. When one does that too often, people tend to disregard the cry when the wolf does come!

We cannot take comfort in what was and work to make it be again. It seems to me, and apparently you, that the days of Judeo-Christian ethics as the sole basis for law are waning.

I am not suggesting that the Church or us as her children abandon our certitude in the truth of her teachings. I think that we need to be careful, though, and to be sure what that truth is. Then we shoulc plan a realistic course of action and become active in the civil arena. Present facts and data and insights from secular sources, from research, and other kinds of persuasive material, including the teaching of the Church. Then go to it!

Not all battles will go in the direction that the Church wants, but there will be more that do, in my estimation, if we enter the arena prepared for people there who do not respond to our own first principles.

In this kind of society there will not be absolute enshrinement of Judeo Christian ethics in law. We got to this point because of the fact that society is abandoning it! We have to plan and organize and look at what will convince those in the civil arena who perhaps might not even like us or see much validity in our faith.

We have to hold firmly to the truth and not trust that vigilance to the government! We need to adapt and do what needs to be done in the kind of society in which we live. We cannot rest on the fact that in the past there was a time when there was population with a strong consensus based on base in Judeo Christian ethics.

In short, things permitted or denied under the prescriptions and proscriptions of those ethics may indeed become law. But it will not be because we say that that is where they come from.

I'm rambling, so I'm going to stop now. But I am at a loss to understand what I've said that warrants your reaction.

I have a couple of concerns to address, but I'll post them separately if that's ok.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

A true mark of genius ... :p

Dear Administrator,

I am concerned over two issues. Here's why.


In your posting, you posted this:

"How do you justly legislate against group marriages, adult-child sexual activity, incest and adultery? Do you? Can you legislate against these things which destroy the family (and they do indeed destroy the family)? Do you even want to? ...."

Do I even want to? I am not sure that I understand your question. Before I react more fully, would you clarify your meaning.

I must say, though, that if you are truly suggesting that I would argue against laws prohibiting things like adult-child sexual activity and incest, I must protest. I would construe that as going beyond the pale.

I've suggested opinions about how to infuse the Churches' teachings into the the civil arena, specifically in law making. Nothing more.

But perhaps I am anticipating what your response might be. You might mean something entirely different.


The second issue arises from your comments in the context of my thoughts on President Bush's use of the terms sinner and sin as a basis in his political decision to keep gays out of marriage. I asked for referrences to examples of that specific activity using the words sin and sinner in support of a political decision to support one side and not another by other American Presidents.

Your response:

"With all due respect (I hate to ask this), have you studied the basics of American history? While all the new history books are cleansing our past of all religious references libraries are still crammed with texts documenting the religious foundations of our society and our government. The concept of sin and references to sin are quite easy to find for anyone doing casual reading. Are you really unaware of the religious influence upon our legal system? If you are, get thee to a library and start reading!"

I did not question the place of religion in the the early or later republic. I asked for referrences to specific instances for specific behavior. I am glad to note that you hated asking.

What made you feel that you had to? I reread the comments and the request and I don't see the need for the generalizing. Perhaps I misread.

I regret that you chose to engage in what seems to me inappropriate generalization and apparent sarcasm, (i.e. "have you studied the basics of American history?" I taught it.)

Administrator, I am not an ostentatious man. If it would be helpful in avoiding further misunderstanding, I will be most happy to private mail you a summary of my educational background and my experiences in education.

Hopefully that will not be necessary.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Steve


PS Please note that I mean no disrespect to the President of the United States. I have never suggested that his religion should not be important to him or that he should leave it at the White House door.

Dear Administrator:

You seem to think that some of us are rejecting Judeo/Chrisitan tradition and morality as a source from which secular public policy may be made. As for me, that is simply wrong.

Perhaps I can make my point this way -

Theology/Natural Law etc. may be ONE factor which one takes into account when making public policy.

BUT it should not be the ONLY factor.

In this case, Judeo/Christian scripture is the ONLY basis we are hearing from the current White House.

It's unconsitutional and it's scary.

As I said above, preach your morality to anyone who will listen - but do it within the confines of the Church, not the State.

The second one reduces the Bible to legislated public policy merely some one person who happens to be in power at the time believes that the Bible is the word of God, you have set a dangerous precedent.

In essence, that person in power is saying "Christianity is my religion and, aslong a I'm in power, all other faiths and beliefs be da***d."

I submit to you, sir, if that happens today, someday somebody who happens NOT to be a Chrisitian will get into power and say "Let Chrisitanity be da***d."

As I said above: very, very scary.

Yours,

kl

Steve & K-L,

Thanks for your posts. I was not suggesting that either of you rejected Christian Teachings on these issues. I was asking how a society that rejects an unchanging moral foundation can determine good from evil (right from wrong). I would like to hear your opinions on this. I chose those specific examples because there are organizations already claiming a right to group marriages, adult-child sexual activity, incest and adultery. If natural law / religious morality is to be only one factor among many which is the most important, overriding factor? Ultimately the most important factor becomes personal choice and when right and wrong are decided by personal choice (consensus) then there is no right and wrong.

K-L stated that preaching morality is the job of the Church, not the State. But the State preaches morality all the time from the establishment of penalties for rape to setting speed limits. What is the basis of this State morality? By what right does the State claim that rape and speeding are immoral (wrong)?

BTW, I am not pretending that we are still the same nation the Founding Fathers established. In many ways we are far better and far stronger. But in many other ways we are far weaker and on a downslide.

Admin

PS1: Did you read the links I have provided in earlier posts? If you do I think you will appreciate my position better. Please respond to this question!

PS2: There is nothing unconstitutional about the President appealing to Christian morality. Quoting from Scripture is hardly a formal establishment of a State religion.

If politicians are not to vote on laws based on their moral and religious conviction, then on what basis do they vote?

For the good of the people, one might say. As Christians, we believe that the good of the people is achieved by following and obeying the Law of God in all walks of life. This includes voting against such heinous crimes as recognized homosexual unions.

On what bases do politicians and lawmakers cast their votes, if not for the ones above?

Logos Teen

For those who have anything Positive to say about the grave and mortal sin of Homosexuality please read this story about a mother who�s son died of AIDS:

For the person who wanted to know where I found my statistics on health problems for Homosexuals. Here is a good start,

Source: Ministry of Health for New Zealand http://www.newhealth.govt.nz/toolkits/suicide/background_2.htm

If you really want to do some homework then see Faulkner and Cranston (1998), Remafedi (1998), and Fergusson (1999) each found that rates of various measures of suicide ideation and attempts were three to seven times higher among gay and lesbian youth compared with heterosexual youth.

Homosexuality is a disease and a mortal sin. It is not an acceptable lifestyle it is an illness.

The President is subject to election campaigns and other political processes in our balance of power system. He is having difficulties getting judges approved due to these processes (without getting into the merits or demerits of individual nominees).

This is the President's respnse to questions asked of him. It is constitutional. It is free speech. It is informing people of the President's thoughts and ideas. It is leadership.

It is not "so ordered"..

It seems to me that this has already happened. Roe v. Wade was decided by a court of unelected Judges serving lifelong terms. The voice of the people and their representatives in the political processes was short circuited, thrown out the window by court order.

"it is so ordered."

Very scary indeed.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

The Administrator comments "I was asking how a society that rejects an unchanging moral foundation can determine good from evil (right from wrong)." The question is sensible and to the point; unfortunately I have no answer to offer. What is clear is that American civil society - and practically everywhere else in what we used to call Christendom - does indeed reject an unchanging moral foundation. As I said earlier, George W. Bush and I do not share the same Faith, nor the same morals, so I would flatly reject the notion of endowing him with even temporary infallibility in such matters.
It is at least possible that the US Supreme Court would find that for GWB to quote the Bible in support of his positions does violate the Court's interpretation of the separation of Church and State. That would not require too much mental juggling from the Court that consistently refuses any assistance at all to Catholic grade schools or high schools, but permits assistance to Catholic universities. Incognitus

Where in the Constitution does it say, "Separation of Church and State?"

I believe with get this nonsense from a US Supreme Court in the 1940s.

Thank you, Incognitus, for making my point. I don't see where anyone has called GWB infallible. He is a political leader, representing those who voted for him. He does not have power to impose ideas, or solutions to political disagreements.

As you point out in the quote above, the Court would assert that its interpretation of the Constitution overrides any political discussion or any attempt to settle issues by political leaders.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights do NOT mention "separation of Church and State". That phrase, reinforced by the reference to a wall dividing the two, is created by the judicial system. I don't have the relevant books at my elbow, but this was in place before the 1940s. The Bill of Rights forbids an "establishment of religion", referring to such a phenomenon as the Church of England as it then was, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion (much to be welcomed, particularly since Catholicism was under legal threat at the time). Fr. Andrew Greeley is not usually considered a right-wing fanatic; if you can find a copy of his book *An Ugly Little Secret* (about anti-Catholicism in America) it's a good read. Incognitus

Dear Administrator:

Rape and speeding are "immoral" and "wrong" becasue they are considered dangerous and costly to individuals as individuals and society as a whole- with or without the word of your particular God.

Once again, I have absolutley no problem with an elected official drawing from a system of morality that is based in theology - whatever that theology may be.

I just have a problem when the sole, only, singular, all alone reason given for a certain public policy is theology.

I feel like I'm repeating myself - probably becasue I am.

Yours,

kl

Dear John:

You mix issues. Where does Free Speech enter into the equasion? No one is restricting an individual's right to free speech. We are talking about serious public policy decisions being made based exclusively upon the President's idea of God and his laws.

As for your point about Roe v. Wade, get used to more decisions like this. Becasue if the current Prez stars throwing his religion around as a basis for his policy decisions, here's bound to be a back-lash.

Yours,

kl

Smoking is also dangerous and costly to individuals and society as a whole and yet it is perfectly legal. There are several organizations working to reform laws prohibiting drug use even though drug use is also dangerous and costly to individuals and society as a whole.

Homosexual activity is dangerous to the individual engaging in it as well as to the integrity of the family and the society as a whole.

K-L wrote: [W]ith or without the word of your particular God.

Do we not both believe in the same Lord, Jesus Christ and fully accept His teachings regarding morality? We can disagree about how to best proclaim Christian morality in society but there should be no differences between us on the laws that God has given us and which the Church has made clear to us.

I have never suggested such a course of action so we must be misunderstanding one another.