Little “faith” at the Faith and Freedom Conference

Faith and Freedom Conference

Sarah Posner has a fascinating article on today’s Religion Dispatch on the Faith and Freedom Conference. Posner quickly points out that many reporters at the conference where conferring about where all of the “religion” and “faith” were amidst this political conference. She explains the nature of the conference by breaking down the two key words in the conference’s name:

First, the Faith and Freedom name plays right into the idea, a cornerstone of religious right activism, that “faith” and “freedom” are inextricably linked; that America is a Christian nation whose founders escaped religious persecution (true) but that their descendants’ freedom of religion has been curtailed by secularists who invented separation of church and state and seek to restrain evangelism (which is equated with “religious freedom”) by allowing gay marriage or other legislation conservative evangelicals disagree with (not true). Being able to practice your “faith” (i.e., demand that government legislate morality based on your faith) is freedom, in this view, which is a driving force of the religious right.

After exploring the overarching intent of the conference, Posner touches upon the Manhattan Declaration (signed by Tim Goeglin of the Bush White House) which placed emphasis on “religious freedom.” Interestingly, those who signed the document proclaiming religious freedom are the same group of people (with a few exceptions) that now oppose the construction of a religious worship site and cultural center in New York City.

Posner explains that the Faith and Freedom Conference was filled with “The your-rights-infringe-on-my-religious-freedom argument is the main one you’d hear from an opponent of gay marriage, say.”

What about the your-religion-infringes-on-my-civil-rights?

Dr. Mirus argues homosexuality is an example of the “deficiencies, defects and disorders” that humans encounter

Dr. Jeff Mirus, President of Catholic Culture

It is of course to no surprise that Catholic Culture features an article that attempts to paint homosexuality as a deficiency, defect, and disorder. Wait! Deficiency? Defect? Disorder? Are you serious Dr. Mirus? Lets look at each of these “descriptive” words in some depth:

A deficiency refers to a lack of something. What are gay and lesbian people lacking? Ah, that’s right equality. Okay, so far I agree with your observation.

A defect refers to a shortcoming, a lack, or imperfection. Yes, on this descriptive word regarding homosexuality, I must agree. I am sure that you apply this word as it applies to the anti-gay laws that exist in particular states and areas regarding the ability of GLBT people to adopt children or perhaps you are drawing attention to the lack of benefits that GLBT people have regarding visiting their spouse in the hospital.

Lastly, you claim that homosexuality is an example of a disorder. This word refers to a state of confusion. I hope you are not referring to my living room! On this application of a descriptive word, I must disagree. The only disorder I see, is your own confusion in somehow thinking that gay marriage will affect your own marriage (if you are indeed married) or society at large.

These explanations are far from what Dr. Mirus actually presents in his article on Catholic Culture. Mirus’s article is instead an attack on gay and lesbians that relentlessly argues that homosexuality is a deficiency, disorder, and a defect. It is a very sad day when a man that purports to be a Catholic, spends his time criticizing and condemning other human beings. It’s intriguing how Dr. Mirus thinks he is worthy to condemn those who were created as homosexuals by God in His image and likeness.

So what does Dr. Mirus present in his article? Here is a very telling excerpt:

He or she must not merely integrate, control and channel sexual inclinations, but must largely deny them altogether, not only in their physical expression, but also in a far broader range of affectivity which is conditioned even in small ways by sexual interplay: Heightened interest, a sense of romance, a special tenderness. It is true that a celibate priest must be very careful of what we might call sexually-tinged affectivity, on the altogether sound theory that one thing leads to another. But the person with persistent homosexual inclinations must suppress or redirect such inclinations to an even greater extent. This is an enormous challenge.

And here is an excerpt from the section where he tries to explain why homosexuality is disordered:

In a cultural vacuum, it ought to be relatively easy to understand intellectually that homosexual inclinations are disordered. It ought to be fairly clear that the sexual faculties are both naturally ordered to the propagation and preservation of the species and supernaturally ordered toward a kind of union among man, woman and child which mirrors the essential fecundity of Divine love. When one notices that one’s own sexual inclinations do not tend toward this sort of union and fecundity—or even this ability to reproduce—then one can perceive a very definite disorder in those inclinations. There may be something one can do to alter them; they may be a very confused set of inclinations which are bound up with past experiences or habits, and so amenable to change as one comes to terms with these experiences or habits. Or there may be no way to eliminate the inclinations at all. Nonetheless, that they are disordered can be intellectually grasped.

Read the entire “analysis” by Dr. Mirus online at Catholic Culture’s website.

Feel free to contact Dr. Mirus with your thoughts at http://www.catholicculture.org/contact/.

They call these “American Principles?” GOP Plank 1 sounds like fascism: Bring on the scarlet letters and Puritan ministers!

Ted Haggard

The American Principles Project sent out a press release on September 8, 2010, in which they formally announced their support for the proposed “Plank 1” for the Republican National Committee’s platform. The “plank” focuses on a few “key” issues for which I have provided commentary in brackets.

• Protecting religious liberty [COMMENTARY: Does this include Muslims and other religious minorities?]

• Protecting religious institutions [COMMENTARY: What about a mosque or Islamic cultural center?]

• Restricting abortion funding and passing the Hyde Amendment [COMMENTARY: So if we are going to proceed with a pro-life agenda, will this also include a proclamation against war and an endorsement of the elimination of capital punishment?]

• Protecting “traditional” marriage [COMMENTARY: Should we also pass a constitutional amendment banning divorce and making infidelity a criminal offense? I sure hope Ted Haggard is ready for those laws!]

• Protect the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children [COMMENTARY: Should we reinstitute the harsh punishments that are endorsed in the Old Testament?]

• Preserve the innocence of children by teaching abstinence education [COMMENTARY: Have you heard of STDs? We cannot stand by idly while young adults go on unaware of steps they can take to prevent transmission of STDs or a teen pregnancy]

I wonder what kinds of answers the right has for these questions? I find this “plank” very disturbing. The plank is a direct attack on civil liberties.

With a platform that focuses on these issues, the Republican National Party (GOP) will be on the verge of fascism. For those who may question my application of the word fascism to describe the GOP’s “social” issue platform, here is the definition of those largely misunderstood term:

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism) noun

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Check out the GOP Plank 1’s website at http://www.goplank1.com/.

Here is the press release describing the plank as provided by the American Principles Project:

9-8-10 Plank 1

U.S. Exports: Homophobia UP Civil Rights for All DOWN

Today’s Boise Weekly included an article on how the United States is exporting its “homophobia” to African countries, such as Uganda. This mass export of ideological hatred has resulted in persecution, torture, and death in Uganda. I wonder what Jesus would have to say about this “modified” form of “love the sinner, but not the sin?” Currently, Uganda is considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would mean genocide for gay and lesbian Ugandans.

Of the situation in Uganda, the Boise Weekly writes:

Although homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since the colonial era, there has been an unprecedented escalation of hatred fueled by Uganda’s pending Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. If passed in its present form, the wide-ranging legislation calls for the death penalty for gays and lesbians who engage in sex and are HIV positive, have committed the offense of homosexuality more than once, have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during a sexual encounter or one partner has a disability. For other, less “aggravated” offenses, they face life in prison.

The bill also affects heterosexuals. Nongovernmental organizations including human rights, advocacy or aid organizations will be prosecuted if any material or advocacy support is provided to or on behalf of LGBT people. This includes family members, friends, medical professionals and clergy. There will be nowhere to run for Yiga or his friends.

So, how does this impact the United States? Well it just so happens that during an economic downturn, America has another export that conservatives in other parts of the world are grappling to purchase — HOMOPHOBIA. In regards to the Ugandan situation the Boise Weekly explains how the U.S. is exporting its views on homosexuality:

America’s influence in African politics goes back centuries, but this most recent anti-homosexual movement can be traced, in part, to a three-day seminar in Kampala in March 2009 called “Exposing the Truth behind Homosexuality and the Homosexual Agenda.” It was led by Scott Lively–a conservative known for his Holocaust revisionist book, The Pink Swastika, which claims homosexuals founded the Nazi party and were responsible for many death camp atrocities–and fellow evangelicals Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer.

Therefore, although IBM, MSFT, ACHN, and other stocks might not be producing the returns you expected this year, you might want to invest in homophobia, because it appears that the demand is up and the supply is for the taking.

It is truly a sad day for religion when it becomes the source of hatred and bigotry. Gay and lesbian people around the world must stand in solidarity with their gay brothers and sisters throughout the world. Queer Faith News (QfN) encourages you to contact the Ugandan Mission to the United Nations and tell them that you will not stand silently while the prospects of genocide wade in the future. You may also want to contact the exporters of hate in the United States and let them know that you would be very supportive of them producing love as an alternative.

Read the entire article on the Boise Weekly’s website.

Ten Points in Support of Gay Marriage: Christian and Secular Perspectives

I would like to thank an earlier reader who commented on a few posts for inspiring this “list” of reasons for supporting gay marriage. I am confident that it will launch a lively discussion, which is the hope. It will only be through dialogue that we will come to understand each other and hopefully understand the need for equality. As a person commenting on the blog reminded me the discussion becomes “sticky” and “personal,” however, I will make every effort to maintain an appropriate tone so as to ensure that emotion does not overwhelm the content of my response.

First, allow me to begin by asserting a point that I am sure we will all agree on: marriage is a cornerstone of any civilization.

Second, another point I am sure we agree on: the United States is a society that was founded on an unequivocal guarantee of equality for all citizens. An equality that has been all too slow to come to fruition for many segments of American society.

Now, with this in mind, why do I believe gay marriage is a right and why such right is fully inline with standard conceptions of morality?

(please pardon the theological arguments that are largely Christian discussions, as I am a Christian)

1. I believe that God created all men and women, equally, and that his creative force cannot be denied based on the outcome of the uniqueness of His creation.

2. The Old Testament asserts that God created order out of chaos and so I wonder how any segment of God’s creation can be “intrinsically disordered.”

3. The “brotherly bond” that an earlier commentator asserted in her posting (See Gotta Love Texas! posting comments) that existed between David and Jonathan was far more intimate than her statement seeks to convey. One need only reference 1 Samuel 20 to understand the intimate nature of David and Jonathan’s relationship. In the case of David and Jonathan, we have ample cross references to earlier passages of the Bible that further clarify the extent of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Take for example 1 Samuel 18:2: “From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house,” this is directly inline with Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The fact that Jonathan lives his father’s house and cleaves to David implies a relationship that is very similar to that described in Genesis, further in Ancient society, cohabitation of this type would have constituted marriage. In 1 Samuel 18:20 we read “Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. ‘I will give her to him’, he thought, ‘so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him’. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law” — this therefore implies that David was somehow a son-in-law to Saul twice over (via his son and daughter). Then in 2 Samuel 1:26: “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

4. Christ preached a message of love. I am confused, as a religious studies scholar, because if Christ came to replace the law of the Old Testament and NEVER mentioned homosexuality or anything remotely similar to it in his time among us, then why has it become a cornerstone of particular Christian denominations’ moral teachings? Please remember that these “moral teachings” that churches teach today, are the formulations of man and based heavily on the interpretation of man.

5. 1 Cor. 6:9 states clearly and powerfully: “Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” Please remember the condemnation contained herein “nor abusers of themselves with men” is not a teaching of Jesus Christ, but rather a teaching of St. Paul.

6. There is a point that I find rather interesting. I have read a few entries on your own blog entries (escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com) and I am fascinated by a particular theme in those speaking out against Islam: Those speaking against Islam are provoked to speak out against such because of the injustices Islamic countries (their words, not mine) are committing against woman and other marginalized populations by subjecting people to Sharia law. I wonder, how is the subjugation to Sharia law and the restrictions places upon people any different than the moral law purported by some Christian denominations when they decide to deny GLBT Americans the right to marry? Is that not the imposition of religious law (as viewed by some) on the majority that should only be subject to civil law?

7. There is a clear distinction between religious and civil law. Please see an earlier post on this blog where religious leaders comment on this distinction.

8. Ancient Societies did have highly ritualized same-sex marriage ceremonies and substantial research has been prepared and is evidenced by ample historical evidence.

9. I am confused by the views of some denominations of Christianity which preach a particular morality, but then back-step on such morality with divorce. There has always been a clear teaching regarding divorce both in the Biblical and Ancient legal tradition: Ne inter coniuges divortium fiat. So I wonder how if the Church has evolved in its understanding of divorce, which is clearly not condoned in the Bible, it is not able to experience a similar evolution in its understanding of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. There are more condemnations of divorce and infidelity in the Old Testament and New Testament than the few scattered mentions of homosexuality (NONE of which were made by Christ who came to replace the law).

10. I believe in a society that allows the balance of justice to protect the rights of the minority. With this in mind, I believe that judicial opinions in Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail clearly recognize the intrinsic right of every American to marry another person. This is especially clear in Zablocki v. Redhail which asserts the right of all Americans to marriage.

Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”