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?

Mehlman says gays should join GOP because they are “against Muslims”

Religion Dispatch has an article on how gays and lesbians “must” protest Islamophobia. Candace Chellew-Hodge’s article opens with a powerful statement:

When Ken Mehlman (former Republican National Committee Chairman, and GOP leader during that party’s most homophobic time between 2004 and 2006) came out of the closet, he argued that gays and lesbians should love his party is because it is fighting against Muslims.

First, I must admit that I missed this statement by Mehlman. Even though I missed the statement, I still feel compelled to voice my disgust at such a statement. The notion that Mehlman perceives his party as the Christian Crusaders of the Twenty-First Century, is terrifying and demonstrative of the party’s far right leanings that are completely out of touch with the principle of religious tolerance on which this country was founded (see Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists for clarification).

I’m happy that Ms. Chellew-Hodge quickly points out how much Muslim and Christian history have in common when it comes to anti-gay persecutions and attacks. Perhaps Mr. Mehlman needs to be “out” for a few more years before he can appreciate his gay history. Chellew-Hodge writes:

Islam, like Christianity, has a history of being anti-gay (as one of my sisters loves to remind me, “Muslims don’t like your kind”), but that’s no excuse for gays and lesbians to be anti-Muslim. Instead, all this Islam-bashing should serve to remind gay and lesbian people that hate speech against any group of people—even those you may disagree with—can’t be tolerated.

In short, I agree with Ms. Chellew-Hodge: we must stand in solidarity with Muslims in America. Although we may not see eye-to-eye on gay rights, we do share a common understanding of what it means to be marginalized in the United States and what it means to have the majority oppress and/or deny rights to a minority. On September 11, when the crazy pastor in Florida burns Qur’ans, we should speak out against this act of intolerance, this act of pure stupidity. We should stand in solidarity on the side of social justice.

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.”

“Gay Muslims exist” declares article on The Daily Loaf

On August 22, The Daily Loaf featured a very interesting article titled “Gay Muslims exist, and they need solidarity too.” The article is powerful in it’s declaration that LGBT advocates need to embrace and stand in solidarity with their Muslim GLBT brothers and sisters. Here is one of the most powerful statements found in the article by Edna Nelson:

It’s time for the LGBT community in the U.S.  to counter Islamaphobia, and spend energy working with LGBT Muslims to cope with the unique issues that face them. Learn about Islam and the LGBT Muslim experience so that all members of the LGBT community can be fully who they are, and enrich the LGBT community itself. The goal of folks like Greg Gutefield is to fragment and disenfranchise the LGBT community, while the goal of LGBT organizers is to create a real resource for everyone. Solidarity is needed, and we all benefit when we are be able to tell our stories, and feel heard.

Nelson also points out that European LGBT activist Judith Butler, refused a recent honor on the basis that the LGBT community has bought into the fear-mongering associated with Islamaphobia.

Read the entire article online at The Daily Loaf.