My friend Sharone made me aware of this exceptional essay written for the "Metro Weekly," a gay-focused magazine distributed in the Washington DC area.
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/commentary.php?ak=1969
The writer, Richard J. Rosendall, takes the religious right to task for, among other things "bearing false witness," and also takes the democrats to task for not having the courage to stand up to them.
Rosenthal states, "The religious fanatics cannot be defeated as long as we allow them to frame the public debate without serious challenge."
Along with other allies, that's what I'm trying to do in my little corner of the blogosphere. The Christ I worship is nothing like the Christ the religious right puts out there. I want to tell you, especially those in the GLBT community, that my Christ loves you as you are. He doesn't hate you like the false prophets of the religious right want you to think.
February 07, 2006
February 05, 2006
God Will Deal with the Messengers of Hate
One of the more frequent themes I have written about and readers have contacted me about is their anger at what we feel is a gross distotion of God's message by "fundamentalists" preaching hatred against GLBT people and those who don't vote Republican. In my bible study over the weekend, I ran across some scripture that addresses how God will handle that when the time for reckoning arrives.
Luke 20:45-47 (NIV) While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be published most severely."
Luke 11:52 (NIV) "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Matthew 7:22-24 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If, as I so strongly feel in my heart, they are wrong, those preachers will be punished severely on judgement day. It it difficult but critically important for us to remember that no one on either side of any issue has the right to judge others--that is God's right and His alone. In these and other scriptures, he clearly promises that he will deal with those who have misrepresented His word and led others down that path.
What if I'm wrong? What if I have misinterpreted the leading of the Holy Spirit and I'm wrong about what I write here? I would face that same type of punishment detailed in the scripture above. Unlike many of the followers of the "fundamentalist" leaders, however, I have taken responsibility for the couse I am charting with my life and my writing.
I have, with guidance from my wife Brenda, my Pastor Dale, and other leaders at my church, worked very hard on developing my individual relationship with Jesus Christ. I have put the effort into bible study, prayer, and studying various teachings on important issues to educate myself and, more importantly, discern God's will for my life without it going through anyone else's filter.
If we have been influenced by a leader who has gone astray, we still have the responsibility to figure out God's will for our lives, not our leader's will. It does take some effort and committment. It's not easy. The bible is not easy to figure out. It can be difficult making ourselves be still and pray. That is where the nourishment of the spirit comes from, though. Without it, our spirit starves just like our body without food.
I went through a spell of my life where I starved my spirit, and it caused me to be less than I could be. I know many people are currently doing the same, especially GLBT people who have just had the living crap kicked out of them by the church.
Please remember, if you've experienced that type of rejection, that is is coming from man, not God. He loves you and is reaching out to you right now, right this very minute! If you reach back and open yourself up to His love, your life will never be the same. Leave the hatred behind, God will deal with those who inflicted it upon you. Just focus on His love and let the Holy Spirit into your soul.
No man, regardless of how much political power he amasses or how loudly he screams, can EVER take that away from you.
Luke 20:45-47 (NIV) While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be published most severely."
Luke 11:52 (NIV) "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Matthew 7:22-24 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If, as I so strongly feel in my heart, they are wrong, those preachers will be punished severely on judgement day. It it difficult but critically important for us to remember that no one on either side of any issue has the right to judge others--that is God's right and His alone. In these and other scriptures, he clearly promises that he will deal with those who have misrepresented His word and led others down that path.
What if I'm wrong? What if I have misinterpreted the leading of the Holy Spirit and I'm wrong about what I write here? I would face that same type of punishment detailed in the scripture above. Unlike many of the followers of the "fundamentalist" leaders, however, I have taken responsibility for the couse I am charting with my life and my writing.
I have, with guidance from my wife Brenda, my Pastor Dale, and other leaders at my church, worked very hard on developing my individual relationship with Jesus Christ. I have put the effort into bible study, prayer, and studying various teachings on important issues to educate myself and, more importantly, discern God's will for my life without it going through anyone else's filter.
If we have been influenced by a leader who has gone astray, we still have the responsibility to figure out God's will for our lives, not our leader's will. It does take some effort and committment. It's not easy. The bible is not easy to figure out. It can be difficult making ourselves be still and pray. That is where the nourishment of the spirit comes from, though. Without it, our spirit starves just like our body without food.
I went through a spell of my life where I starved my spirit, and it caused me to be less than I could be. I know many people are currently doing the same, especially GLBT people who have just had the living crap kicked out of them by the church.
Please remember, if you've experienced that type of rejection, that is is coming from man, not God. He loves you and is reaching out to you right now, right this very minute! If you reach back and open yourself up to His love, your life will never be the same. Leave the hatred behind, God will deal with those who inflicted it upon you. Just focus on His love and let the Holy Spirit into your soul.
No man, regardless of how much political power he amasses or how loudly he screams, can EVER take that away from you.
February 03, 2006
Acceptance is a Two-Way Street
I've really been spoiled by positive experiences with the GLBT community. I was made painfully aware of that fact this past week when my attempted interaction with a local GLBT organization took a nasty and disappointing turn.
One of the avenues I have used to draw new readers to Straight, Not Narrow, has been to join Yahoo groups that have a somewhat similar focus. Since I write about both GLBT policital issues and the relationship of christianity to the GLBT community, I requested and received membership in groups that focused on one or both of those areas.
Last week, I posted messages in my groups linking to my SNN post "Don't Trust the System, Trust The Lord." The content of the message was "I just added a post to my blog about how I feel we need Christ to guide us through our involvement in the political process. I would appreciate any feedback you would care to give." As I hoped, people from several groups visited this site, read the post, and left interesting comments here and back in the groups.
I have stated several times since starting this blog that one of my main goals was to stimulate dialogue. I'm inviting people to respectfully disagree with what I write because it's that exchange of ideas that can foster learning on both sides of an issue.
There was one group, however, that reacted much differently. A local orgainzation that claims to be "dedicated to promoting equality and full participation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people..... through advocacy, education, community outreach and partnership."
When I checked e-mail the next morning after I has posted my message, I had a note from the moderator of this group telling me how inappropriate my message was, how many members were offended, threatening to ban me from the group, and asking me to apologize for posting something that "was obviously not related to GLBT issues" in their area.
I remain unclear how anything discussing ideas of how to approach politics is not related to GLBT issues. I don't understand how I could have offended anyone by expressing an opinion based on my beliefs without condemning anyone else or belittling their value system.
There were probably Jewish or Muslim members that read my message, and I wouldn't expect them to be offended, just like I wouldn't take offense if they had written about taking an Old Testament approach or how Allah would address issues. I wouldn't agree with those points any more than either one would agree with mine, but I would not demand they be banned from the group either.
One thing I do not intend to do here is to anger people who clearly are not interested in this message. While I declined to offer an apology, I also immediately removed myself from their group. In Luke 9:5 (NIV), Jesus told His disciples, "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town."
I am not naming this group because I don't want their cause, if they ever actually do anything to advance it, to be damaged in any way. I do have to ask, however, how is the way they rejected me, most of them without even reading the content of my post here, any different from the rejection that they are supposed to be uniting to work against? I also wonder, if they are so concerned about anyone being offended, just how they plan on effecting change, which by it's very nature offends people. Good luck with that approach.
I said at the beginning that I have been spoiled because that is the first blatant rejection I have received from a GLBT group. My church, comprised of a clear majority of GLBT members, has accepted me just as I am from day one, and this experience reminded me that I should not take that for granted.
For GLBT people who want and deserve to be treated with respect by people who aren't like tham, I suggest they remember to give what they hope to receive.
Acceptance does work BOTH ways.
One of the avenues I have used to draw new readers to Straight, Not Narrow, has been to join Yahoo groups that have a somewhat similar focus. Since I write about both GLBT policital issues and the relationship of christianity to the GLBT community, I requested and received membership in groups that focused on one or both of those areas.
Last week, I posted messages in my groups linking to my SNN post "Don't Trust the System, Trust The Lord." The content of the message was "I just added a post to my blog about how I feel we need Christ to guide us through our involvement in the political process. I would appreciate any feedback you would care to give." As I hoped, people from several groups visited this site, read the post, and left interesting comments here and back in the groups.
I have stated several times since starting this blog that one of my main goals was to stimulate dialogue. I'm inviting people to respectfully disagree with what I write because it's that exchange of ideas that can foster learning on both sides of an issue.
There was one group, however, that reacted much differently. A local orgainzation that claims to be "dedicated to promoting equality and full participation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people..... through advocacy, education, community outreach and partnership."
When I checked e-mail the next morning after I has posted my message, I had a note from the moderator of this group telling me how inappropriate my message was, how many members were offended, threatening to ban me from the group, and asking me to apologize for posting something that "was obviously not related to GLBT issues" in their area.
I remain unclear how anything discussing ideas of how to approach politics is not related to GLBT issues. I don't understand how I could have offended anyone by expressing an opinion based on my beliefs without condemning anyone else or belittling their value system.
There were probably Jewish or Muslim members that read my message, and I wouldn't expect them to be offended, just like I wouldn't take offense if they had written about taking an Old Testament approach or how Allah would address issues. I wouldn't agree with those points any more than either one would agree with mine, but I would not demand they be banned from the group either.
One thing I do not intend to do here is to anger people who clearly are not interested in this message. While I declined to offer an apology, I also immediately removed myself from their group. In Luke 9:5 (NIV), Jesus told His disciples, "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town."
I am not naming this group because I don't want their cause, if they ever actually do anything to advance it, to be damaged in any way. I do have to ask, however, how is the way they rejected me, most of them without even reading the content of my post here, any different from the rejection that they are supposed to be uniting to work against? I also wonder, if they are so concerned about anyone being offended, just how they plan on effecting change, which by it's very nature offends people. Good luck with that approach.
I said at the beginning that I have been spoiled because that is the first blatant rejection I have received from a GLBT group. My church, comprised of a clear majority of GLBT members, has accepted me just as I am from day one, and this experience reminded me that I should not take that for granted.
For GLBT people who want and deserve to be treated with respect by people who aren't like tham, I suggest they remember to give what they hope to receive.
Acceptance does work BOTH ways.
February 01, 2006
The Level of Debate
An online chat at WashingtonPost.com today featured two members of the Maryland state legislature who took questions regarding the constitutional amendment up for consideration that would make same-sex marriage against the law.
Favoring the amendment was Republican delegate Adelaide C. Eckardt. Opposing it was Democratic delegate Richard S. Madaleno Jr. The difference in the depth these two delegates brought to this issue was striking. I'll link to both chats below, but here are some of what I consider the most interesting comments.
Delegate Eckardt:
Q: One of the primary justifications I have heard for this amendment is the maintenance of the traditional institution of marriage. Slavery and women being unable to vote, both also historic examples of rights being denied to a section of our population, were also tradition at one time. What makes this issue different? (that question was my contribution)
A: Marriage between a man and a woman has been at the very foundation of our society - and essentially was for procreation.
Q: I want to know what Del. Eckardt recommends gay couples do to protect themselves in retirement. My partner and I are approaching retirement, and I am worried that if my partner dies before I do (he is 10 years my senior and has been the breadwinner in our family the past couple of years) that I will be in big trouble due to the lack of Social Security and health benefits that I can't enjoy because I am unable to marry. What would Del. Eckardt do if he were in my situation?
A: When individuals choose their lifestyle there may be implications.
Q: You state that there has been an "erosion" to our society by the courts. What is that erosion? Can you please explain? This a much-used talking point, but no one explains what the erosion is. Your thoughts?
A: A gradual chipping away of this country's most basic institutions.
Delegate Madaleno:
He had an opening statement, unlike his colleague
Thank you for allowing me to answer your questions concerning legislation to amend the Maryland constitution, House Bill 48. I do not support the call for a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. A constitution provides a blueprint for the structure of government and guarantees certain rights to protect its citizens from government interference. The Maryland Constitution provides its citizens the right to turn to both their elected representatives and to the judiciary to secure their liberties. This bill, if adopted, would deny this fundamental American right to all those who support marriage equality. I will not support this assault on our fundamental liberties. In my opinion, our country's great innovation was to develop a system of governance that checks majority rule with certain guaranteed rights for the minority no matter how despised. To deny a group of citizens access to their courts and to their legislature due to the decision of a single trail court judge is unwarranted.
I would encourage the readers to review carefully the language of HB 48. Section (B) of the amendment would prohibit the legal recognition of any relationship between two people of the same gender. Not only would it prohibit civil unions, it is so broad that it would prohibit any public agency from providing health care benefits to domestic partners. It is so vague that we cannot begin to know all of its consequences. For example, the language could prohibit a mother from designating a daughter in a power of attorney since they are both of the same gender and medical decision making is a benefit of marriage. Others say it could prohibit divorce. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is unworkable and unwieldy.
Again, the difference in the level of dialogue between these two legislators was very striking. From debates I have heard and comments I have read, it is representative of how each side approaches this issue. Opponents of same-sex marriage that I have seen tend to rely on tradition, religion, and fear of change, while proponents often approach it as a civil rights issue.
In my last post, I said I felt it was important for someone to be educated on the issues. I fear that a substantial portion of the majority of people same-sex marriage opponents often point to are not terribly well versed on the implications of these issues. In the Washington Post debate, delegate Eckardt clearly was not sure of the far reaching implications of the Maryland amendment. Conversely, Delegate Madaleno has clearly done his homework.
Tradition is no basis for deciding this issue. Over time in the bible, traditions changed. God's will for mankind has been a gradual revealation. The days of concubines are long gone. The procreation agruement also falls short, since there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that can't have children.
Since I've taken away the easy answers for the opponents of same-sex marriage, maybe THEY need to do some homework. I'm confident if they do, some opinions will change.
Links for the Washington Post chat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101199.html (Rep. Eckardt)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101209.html (Rep. Madaleno)
Favoring the amendment was Republican delegate Adelaide C. Eckardt. Opposing it was Democratic delegate Richard S. Madaleno Jr. The difference in the depth these two delegates brought to this issue was striking. I'll link to both chats below, but here are some of what I consider the most interesting comments.
Delegate Eckardt:
Q: One of the primary justifications I have heard for this amendment is the maintenance of the traditional institution of marriage. Slavery and women being unable to vote, both also historic examples of rights being denied to a section of our population, were also tradition at one time. What makes this issue different? (that question was my contribution)
A: Marriage between a man and a woman has been at the very foundation of our society - and essentially was for procreation.
Q: I want to know what Del. Eckardt recommends gay couples do to protect themselves in retirement. My partner and I are approaching retirement, and I am worried that if my partner dies before I do (he is 10 years my senior and has been the breadwinner in our family the past couple of years) that I will be in big trouble due to the lack of Social Security and health benefits that I can't enjoy because I am unable to marry. What would Del. Eckardt do if he were in my situation?
A: When individuals choose their lifestyle there may be implications.
Q: You state that there has been an "erosion" to our society by the courts. What is that erosion? Can you please explain? This a much-used talking point, but no one explains what the erosion is. Your thoughts?
A: A gradual chipping away of this country's most basic institutions.
Delegate Madaleno:
He had an opening statement, unlike his colleague
Thank you for allowing me to answer your questions concerning legislation to amend the Maryland constitution, House Bill 48. I do not support the call for a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. A constitution provides a blueprint for the structure of government and guarantees certain rights to protect its citizens from government interference. The Maryland Constitution provides its citizens the right to turn to both their elected representatives and to the judiciary to secure their liberties. This bill, if adopted, would deny this fundamental American right to all those who support marriage equality. I will not support this assault on our fundamental liberties. In my opinion, our country's great innovation was to develop a system of governance that checks majority rule with certain guaranteed rights for the minority no matter how despised. To deny a group of citizens access to their courts and to their legislature due to the decision of a single trail court judge is unwarranted.
I would encourage the readers to review carefully the language of HB 48. Section (B) of the amendment would prohibit the legal recognition of any relationship between two people of the same gender. Not only would it prohibit civil unions, it is so broad that it would prohibit any public agency from providing health care benefits to domestic partners. It is so vague that we cannot begin to know all of its consequences. For example, the language could prohibit a mother from designating a daughter in a power of attorney since they are both of the same gender and medical decision making is a benefit of marriage. Others say it could prohibit divorce. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is unworkable and unwieldy.
Again, the difference in the level of dialogue between these two legislators was very striking. From debates I have heard and comments I have read, it is representative of how each side approaches this issue. Opponents of same-sex marriage that I have seen tend to rely on tradition, religion, and fear of change, while proponents often approach it as a civil rights issue.
In my last post, I said I felt it was important for someone to be educated on the issues. I fear that a substantial portion of the majority of people same-sex marriage opponents often point to are not terribly well versed on the implications of these issues. In the Washington Post debate, delegate Eckardt clearly was not sure of the far reaching implications of the Maryland amendment. Conversely, Delegate Madaleno has clearly done his homework.
Tradition is no basis for deciding this issue. Over time in the bible, traditions changed. God's will for mankind has been a gradual revealation. The days of concubines are long gone. The procreation agruement also falls short, since there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that can't have children.
Since I've taken away the easy answers for the opponents of same-sex marriage, maybe THEY need to do some homework. I'm confident if they do, some opinions will change.
Links for the Washington Post chat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101199.html (Rep. Eckardt)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101209.html (Rep. Madaleno)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
