thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as long as it keeps republicans in control of the house and senate
Eddie(F) at Edge of Faith has a great post up about Bush’s proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.
For some reason, I’ve tried to avoid talking about things overtly political, even though this is ostensibly a religion blog and religion and politics are attached at the hip so often, especially in that country to the south of me — you know, the one founded by people who fled another country where the marriage of religion and politics had turned deathly oppressive.
I guess we all turn into our parents eventually, which is why the United States of America has, two centuries later, followed suit.
Laws passed on what one of the many deities seemingly would want is not only insane, but exactly what the forefathers were against when they crafted the constitution to protect all minorities.
Handing out $5 Starbucks gift certificates to gay people to show the “kindness of Jesus with no strings attached” is an affront to them, especially when many of the same people giving out these cards are the ones supporting Bush to pass this amendment. If you want do to something Christlike for gay people, then lobby your congressperson to oppose this amendment. I don’t see Jesus walking around influencing Rome to establish his kingdom which he said is not from this world to begin with.
Of course, for American Dominionists, the “kingdom” will be brought about by the sweat, tears and force of good Christians.
It’s been said many times and many ways, but I’ll say it again: if Dominionist Christians are so concerned with legislating marriage according to Biblical principles, why aren’t they trying to outlaw divorce?
Then there’s also the fact that this amendment is clearly pre-election pandering to so-called middle America. I agree with Peter David: if I were a conservative American, I’d be insulted.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:16 am
If I’m not mistaken, Eddie(f) is largely referring to a post over at Dorsey’s place here. In the comments of this post, some shit-throwing ensued, and Dorsey proceded to delete many of the comments.
Just a little background…
Anyway, assuming that these are the folks to whom Eddie refers, this statement:
is rather disingenuous. The folks — at least the ones I’m aware of — who are passing out these cards do so pretty much in apology for BushCo’s policies, not in support of them. I certainly wouldn’t have supported this effort otherwise, at least — I’m in favor of allowing gay marriage nationwide. Or, as Eddie so rightly put it:
June 10th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Oh, thanks for that background. I didn’t realize that — it’s probably in the comments somewhere but I didn’t read those really carefully as it basically got into a tax discussion. Not that I don’t like discussing taxes, but I wasn’t really in the mood for it at the time.
I think you’re right, that Eddie’s being a little unfair if he’s singling out Dorsey in this particular case because we know that Dorsey opposes Bush’s policies and the policies of likeminded dominionists. But, at the same time, he has a point in general. I feel this frustration with well-meaning evangelicals who say, “You might be gay but I’m going to love you anyway!” People like me say, “There IS no ‘anyway’!” I want evangelicals to directly confront the ugliness of the teachings of their religion on this particular issue. It’s not enough to say, “Our religion has been cruel to you, I’m sorry.” I want them to genuinely work toward moving past the fearmongering and indoctrination that Christianity has surrounding issues of sexuality.
Now, I know some folks would rebut me here, saying “Yeah, you just want people to believe the same thing you do.” Which is true, of course. And unrealistic.
I guess I’m just sick of Christians saying, “I love you in Christ, but you’re a sinner,” when a person cannot help being a sinner, and the Bible has been mistranslated to make it say that they’re sinners.
On another tack, if Dorsey and Co. want to really build bridges and promote healing between the Christian and queer communities, they need to actually build relationships with people in the queer community, not just hand out presents in a display of largesse at Pride. In my experience, most Christians don’t have gay friends, and if they do, it’s just a token one here or there. (There are always exceptions, of course, including, of course, gay Christians themselves!)
June 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
It’s been said many times and many ways, but I’ll say it again: if Dominionist Christians are so concerned with legislating marriage according to Biblical principles, why aren’t they trying to outlaw divorce?
EXACTLY! Divorce has done more to rip “traditional” marriage a new one than letting homosexuals marry ever will.
I’ve seen some of what this stuff can do. I know someone who was kicked out of my church because the board found out he was gay, and he refused to “go straight”. His family has been pissed off about it ever since. Oddly enough, my pastor has a gay brother. Kinda sucks to think about it, really.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Just to be clear: I have nothing against Dorsey, and I hold no grudges against what he feels in his heart he needs to do, or why he deleted my comments. His “act” was merely a catalyst to speak my mind. I cannot, and WILL not judge what is in his heart - so let’s call the $5 Starbuck gift card merely a springboard for me to say what I needed to say. A “marketing gimmick” if you would. If that is OK with everyone else.
;-)
June 11th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Absolutely. The church I attend (when I go…notice it’s Sunday morning, and I’m reading blogs instead!) is open to people of all persuasions, but it’s a rarity, especially here in fundie-crazy Colorado Springs. But, our Pridefest parade is comingup, and I believe some of our (straight) members are actually marching in support.
As much as I question my own beliefs, and as specifically-defined as the title “Christian” is these days (to the general public), I’m often tempted to ditch the term altogether.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I agree with most of what you’re saying. But I’d quibble with the idea that the colonies were established for religious freedom. Quite a few of the original colonies were quas-theocracies.
Regarding divorce, I think Jon Stewart said it well on The Daily Show the other night when he was talking to Bill Bennett about gay marriage: “Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness.” (If you haven’t seen the entire bit, it’s worth watching and is up here.)
June 13th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Quasi even.