Chicago Sun-Times, October 18, 1998
This piece also appeared in the Plano (TX) Star-Courier
(RussellB@scripps.com) and the Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times
(editor@citizen-times.com) on Sunday, 10/18/98.
(The only difference between 1998 and
now is that the extremists are better at spinning their lies. In 1998,
they were promotng "creationism". Now, it's "intellgent design". Back
then, it was "hate the sin, love the sinner." Now, it's "protect
marriage." GS)
Representatives of the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and
the Family Research Council will tell you that the Bible is clear in
its condemnation of homosexual behavior. They run full-page newspaper
ads claiming that, contrary to all scientific evidence, homosexuals are
sinners who can be cured if they believe in Jesus Christ and pray hard
enough. Yet, they accept no responsibility for fostering lack of
respect, intolerance, and even violence towards gay men and lesbians.
These organizations claim that recognizing the rights of gays and
lesbians will lead to civil rights protections for pedophiles,
sadomasochists, polygamists, and those who practice bestiality or
necrophilia. Allowing gays and lesbians to form families, they further
contend, will destroy traditional marriage. They play on the fears of
the American people. Yet, they claim they have not contributed to the
atmosphere that led to the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming.
To their credit, representatives of the Christian Coalition, Focus on
the Family, and the Family Research Council were quick to condemn the
violence in Wyoming. But, sadly, they couldn't resist the opportunity
to remind us of Mr. Shepard's "immoral lifestyle".
The conservative Christian activists who comprise these organizations
have a heartfelt belief that they must bring us to salvation. For them,
The Bible is the only valid rulebook for behavior and morality. The
Bible trumps everything else, including the Constitution of the United
States. If they can't get us to believe as they do, they think that
they can still help us by passing laws requiring us to behave properly.
If we object, they feel sorry for us because we are lowly sinners, or,
they accuse us of religious bigotry for opposing them.
Conservative Christian organizations, leaders, and activists have every
right to judge their own and others' behavior by biblical standards.
They even have a right to pick and choose which biblical dictates they
will follow and which they will ignore. Some accuse them of hypocrisy
for this selectivity. I choose to call them fallible human beings, just
like everyone else.
Biblical standards of conduct most certainly have shaped our laws. That
is part of our heritage. But, no matter how fervently conservative
Christian activists want it to be the case, the United States is,
thankfully, not a Christian Theocracy. In the United States, we respect
the rights, beliefs, and liberties of all citizens. Personal liberty is
only curtailed when it interferes with the liberty of others.
Having gay neighbors does not damage the liberty of conservative
Christians. But, the liberty of gay Americans is most certainly damaged
by the conservative Christian activists' claim that homosexuals are not
deserving of the same respect and dignity due all citizens.
Matthew Shepard's rights were violated by two men, steeped in the
climate of hate currently existing in our society. Statistics show that
hate crimes legislation allows society to take a stand against hate and
reduces violence. These groups have supported hate crimes legislation
that protects persons of faith. And, yet they oppose hate crime laws
that include sexual orientation.
Steven Schwalm of the Family Research Council says these laws would
turn the United States government into "Orwellian thought police." This
is disingenuous. Our legal system takes thoughts and motives into
account. Otherwise, we would often not be able to determine the
difference between accidental death and murder. (Did Joe run over the
elderly lady deliberately, or, because she walked into his path and he
couldn't stop?) Thoughts and motives are also central to Christian
concepts of sin and forgiveness. How else could conservative Christians
have known that the adulterers Ronald and Nancy Reagan had been
forgiven for their sins and that Mr. Reagan was, therefore, worthy of
election as President of the United States?
I will defend to the death the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness of all Americans, including the leaders and membership of
the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research
Council. Sadly, they refuse to grant these same rights to those with
whom they disagree.
I will also fight to defend our constitution. I will never allow anyone
to give The Bible, religious doctrine, or any other religious document
supremacy over the United States Constitution. To do otherwise would
surely destroy our nation.
-- Geoff Staples, Dallas (Geoff.Staples@Epitome.com) Mr. Staples is
former chairman of the board of the "National Gay and Lesbian Alliance
for Young Adults" and a contributing editor to the 1994 book "Uncommon
Heroes."
|
||||||||||
Some things never change
Comments
Get a free account so you can post your comments.
Re: Some things never change
by
rothgar
on Mon 07 Nov 2005 08:59 AM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
Nicely said.
I am exactly the archtype person who should oppose you; white anglo-saxon, protestent, even evangelical, fundamentalist. Most of the people I spend Sundays with disagree with your rights. But then again, I suspect those same folks would have opposed inter-racial marriage a few decades ago - hmm! But hey the Music is good! I like good music. The only thing I have some disagreement on is whether our laws have any link to the Bible. First of all only 6 of the ten Commandments can be traced to modern English common law. The other 4 more important commandments have no correspondance in our law. Especially tough to find is inb our law is the most important commandment (love thy neighbor) as stated by Christ. Second, it is well known that the various Celtic, Saxon, and Norse tribes of Europe had well developed and administered laws/government long before Abram (eventually renamed Abramham) had left Ur. How else could neolithic people have done things like raising Stonehenge. Accordingly, I doubt that much of our legal structure can actually be traced to the Bible. I doubt that when Northern Europe converted to Christiaqnity their laws did not change since they fit the Christian model already. Otherwise, England would have had provisions for civilized slavery (like Rome) and would not have had to treat Africans as sub-human in order to enslave them. Also, if you continue reading in Collosians (the very verses that anti homosexuality rights advocates use to condemn Gays) it says that all manner of activities are sin and that we all need redemption -- there is no special treatment of Gays in there. Nor is there any special treatment of Gays in the clearest recitation of the salvation story; John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave is one and only Son, that whoever beleives in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Where in this statement are Gays excluded? I have two further corrundums with allowing Christians to attack Gays. First, what happens to someone who grows up in the church does everything that Christianity requires to become saved, then discovers in adulthood they are attracted to people of the same sex? Do they suddenly lose their salvation? Do they suddenly become evil? If other people can sin and "backslide" and stay saved don't the same rules apply to Gays? Second, if as science is increasingly showing there are biological roots to Gayness -- that it isn't a choice as much as a complusion. Aren't these "Christians" condemning God's creation? Although at one point I had to outwit some Navy "Queens" who planned to have fun at my expense, I don't think that there is anything any more unnatural about attraction to people of the same sex as my extreme (if focused) attraction to women (I am a man) most notably my wife. Sorry about disagreeing on finer points of the law and bible. I do agree that Bigots should be allowed to be bigots amongst themselves, but forcing their bigotry on everyone is just plain wrong. Suppressing bigotry too much and we get things like the OK City attack. Re: Some things never change
by
Geoff Staples
on Mon 07 Nov 2005 09:49 AM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I don't think we disagree. I said that The Bible informs our laws. That is different from The Bible being the basis for our laws and culture. But, then, the sum total of human history and religion inform our laws and our society. We have rejected some of it and embraced some of it. Isn't that the point you are making?
I usually say that the Golden Rule is the Judeo-Christian version of a universal principle that is present in all human culture and religion. Some call it "Karma." Some simply say, "What goes around, comes around." This mutual respect is the foundation of human society and culture. Those who argue for absolute moral values which must be enforced by law deny this foundation of mutual respect. But, even this rule is not absolute. Someone stands on a bridge with a machine gun and shoots dead the drivers of the cars passing on the road under the bridge. He is going to be arrested and prosecuted because we all agree that it is wrong. But, it isn't an absolute. Let me demonstrate. A member of the French Resistance stands on a bridge with a machine gun and shoots dead the drivers of the Nazi troop transports on the road passing under the bridge. Is he going to be arrested and prosecuted because we all agree that it is wrong? I don't think so. Now, what if the guy is on a bridge in Iraq shooting American troops passing under the bridge? Our laws are a balancing act of competing rights - not absolute. Some religious traditions bar medical treatment. When the three year old child of a member of one of these sects refuses antibiotic treatment that has a 95% probability of restoring the child to full health, do we honor the rights of the parent or do we decide that the rights of the child supercede the rights of the parent and administer the antibiotics? Essentially, absoutist positions always deny the rights of others and are ultimately untenable because circumstances invariably arise that challenge the absolutist position. In the same-sex marriage debate, the Republicans argue that it is a violation of God's law. Marriage must be between one man and one woman. But, they accept divorce even though it is also a violation of God's law. Divorce is a far bigger threat to traditional marriage than same-sex marriages. But, the Republicans and the fundamentalists ignore this simple fact. If I were cynical, I would say it is a simple case of selective hypocrisy. Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the U. S. and are the strongest opponents of same-sex marriage. The right-wingers claimed to vote based on family values and religious absolutes. But, then they voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Jimmy Carter. On the tv program "Boston Legal" last week, one of the attorneys asks, "How strange or silly does a religion have to be before we refuse to respect the religion or its practitioners? Who gets to decide which religions are worthy and which are not?" It's an Issue of Semantics
by
rothgar
on Mon 07 Nov 2005 12:07 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I agree with you that this is a matter of semantics.
However, I don't like to acknowledge that the Bible has any direct relationship with our body of common law because then my co-religionists make an objectionable leap. We need to make our laws consistent with the teachings of the Bible. This leap supported by acknowledging that the Bible has some relationship to our laws is politically dangerous. As Karl Jung would say (poorly paraphrased) there are universal truths embedded in our subconsciouses. This lead peoples all around the world to arrive at essentially the same set of results - for example the golden rule which as you said shows up in religions thoughout the world. BTW Thank you for the example of the machine gunner. I have been needing a good example for arguments I've been making about abortion. I think Pro-Choice people have allowed the argument about abortion to be played on the Pro-Life movements "home field" - questions about the humanity of the fetus. I feel this is irrelevant to the argument about abortion rights. The real question is whose rights take precedence; the adult mother or the preborn fetus. The 4th Amendment gives her the right to control her person (or house/documents as strictly stated). The 14th Amendment confers citizenship rights on those persons born it is right in the words of the amendment. Accordingly, I would say until the fetus can qualify as being an independent life the Mother's rights take precedence. In your example the reaction to the machine gunner would depend on which side of the fight you are on. To the Germans that machine gunner is a criminal/rebel automatically subject to death. To Americans and Free French Forces that machine gunner would be a hero or at least an ally and would be lauded for his bravery. From the German side, the driver he killed was probably a hero (or at least a tragic figure, if conscripted). Noone in this case is innocent - though the German driver might claim to just be following orders. This is one of many cases where killing is justified by circumstance. If I shot a burglar entering my house I would probably not be charged except in some really unusual circumstance. Now, in Florida, a scared person can legally blow some young punk away just because he/she was scared. I wrote a short story about this possibility. Pretty scary for a large gruff person like myself. Sorry to have diverged of topic but I do appreciate your example and will swipe it unless you object. Re: Some things never change
by
Geoff Staples
on Tue 08 Nov 2005 05:53 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
What I am saying is really simple:
The sum total of human experience on this planet informs our constitution, our laws, etc. So, some of the things that inform our laws are: The invention of the telescope. Charles Manson Mother Teresa incubators electricity nuclear weapons Christianity Satanism Hinduism Atheism Mozart Shakespeare Jesus Christ Judas Helen of Troy Rosa Parks Bubble Gum antibiotics Whales the polar icecaps dinosaurs Spartacus Star Trek Debbie Does Dallas George Bush Hustler Magazine Michelangelo's Statue of David The Sistine Chapel Stonehenge agriculture crop circles Hitler space shuttle earth worms hurricanes the Sun the Earth France Iran The Bible Nostradamus Machiavelli The Magna Charta tap dancing New Orleans' French Quarter Amsterdam's red light district petroleum trees radio printing press Internet shoes wheels So, The Bible informs our attitudes just like everything in our collective experience. As both of us have pointed out, laws and society must negotiate competing rights. When anyone, for any reason, makes the claim that the rights of one group should be subordinated to the rights of others - watch out. That's usually a pretty good signal that those claiming the superiority of their rights are up to no good. We say that a fetuc can be aborted until it can live outside a woman's body. We say that the right to medical treatment of a three year old supercedes the religous beliefs of parents whose religion calls them to deny that treatment. I happen to be an atheist. But, I want the spiritual and religious beliefs of others to be respected. If I deny you your beliefs and life choices, I give you the right to deny me mine. Re: Re: Some things never change
by
rothgar
on Tue 08 Nov 2005 09:23 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I think we are in what used to be called at my employer violent agreement.
BTW I thoroughly support protect and cherish your right to be free to beleive or not beleive as you see fit. It is this freedom of choice that makes the choice worthwhile. As I've pointed out to some of my co-religionists if we impose our beleifs because we are the majority we need to be ready to accept having other faiths thrust upon us. Imagine the "righteous rage" if the Christians at a DC High school football game had to listen to Islamic prayers becuase that school happened to be in a predominantly Black Muslim area -- Whew. I must admit having been agnostic up until about age 24 when I finally got past the treatment I received in a religious pre-school. In them days in Howard County MD there was no public Kindergarten (a situation my Mom changed) so to go to kinergarten required attending a church school where I was riddiculed for my lack of beleif. Re: Re: Re: Some things never change
by
Geoff Staples
on Tue 08 Nov 2005 10:02 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I was a student in Baltimore Public Schools when Madeyn O'haire Murray brought her prayer in school lawsuit. I was grateful she won because my school was quite diverse. It always seemed to me that no matter what religious observance took place in school, it disadvanted another group of equally devout students.
I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I am fascinated and interested in religious beliefs. And, I greatly desire that the all persons have equal opportunity to express their beliefs. I've always thought that it was the militant Christians who ran religion out of the schools with their demand that they had a right to have Christianity in the schools and the right "protect" their children from other religious traditions. Re: Some things never change
by
rothgar
on Sun 13 Nov 2005 05:11 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
The plain out idiocy of the intelligent design story is too amazing to let go without rebuttal.
Yes, today if we look at the composite sum of the evolution of species the result are highly complex organisms. However evolution occured over the course of millions and millions of years and involved far simplier organisms completing with equally simplier organisms. Intelligent Design is like saying that humans couldn't possibily have invented Television because modern high-definition digital televisions are so complex that no single human (or group of humans) could possibly create such a device from a clean sheet. Of course, like evolution, the television started simply and has evolved into the highly complex device that we see today. Perhaps instead of attacking the obivious attempt at injecting creationism into biology we should attack the inanity of Intelligent Design. Then we force them to actually enumerate what they see as holes in the theory of natural selection. It is interesting to listen to critics of evolution acknowleging that evolution is happening today (can anyone say Bird Flu panic) at the microscopic level then try to argue that the same mechanisms don't work in general. Claiming that history couldn't have happened because the final result is very complex is just plain stupid and runs counter to everything that we see in all walks of life from literature to computer science. Re: Re: Some things never change
by
Geoff Staples
on Sun 13 Nov 2005 08:26 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I think we should teach intelligent design in the schools. But, the caveat is that there is no evidence that God was the intelligent designer. It could have been atheists from another planet or Adolph Hitler in a prior incarnation. Each of those is equally as likely as that it was "God".
The problem with intelligent design is that it denies faith by demanding a scientific proof that God created the world for those whose faith isn't strong enough to simply believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Re: Some things never change
by
mivadar
on Sun 13 Nov 2005 09:43 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
I disagree with teaching intelligent design in schools. Rather, I disagree with teaching it the way they want to.
I find it very important that school children, at whatever age they start to study science, get a very clear definition of scientific principles, and how natural science is structured. The first thing to get into the heads of people is the scientific method - the meaning of a scientific model and hypothesis, and empirical theory. (All this usually in the subject matter of theory of science or philosophy of science.) From this also comes the comparison of (natural) science with other disciplines - that in science a theory or model needs to be primarily useful, empirically testable and always falsifiable, progressive, and tentative (correctible). If it doesn't fulfill these criteria, it is not science. (In addition, a "beautiful" theory, that is, one that will actually be used and kept for some time, has to be based on controlled experiments, needs to be consistent and ideally parsimonious.) These criteria didn't jump from bare space, but all are there to effectively ensure that science is predictive and repeatedly testable. I don't want to go through the whole philosophical argumentation, but essentially all scientists who produced anything enduring since Galileo subscribe to these or similar principles. Once this is established, this scientific method can be tested against different hypotheses and models that are floating around. Most will stand, some will fall. e.g. Newton's theory of gravity, Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics, the theory of relativity - generally established scientific theories do stand the trial. Interestingly, flatearthism, at least in its most developed form, also stands. A scientific theory can be *wrong* (in fact a scientific theory can never be 100% right) - the criterion is that it must have an empirical way of being disproved. Theism, most philosophical schools of thought, etc. however fall through - but they are supposed to, they never claimed to be science, and this doesn't diminish their value. If Intelligent Design is taught in this framework, together with a bunch of scientific theories, I don't see a problem with it. As a first thing, an observant student (or teacher) will strip I.D. down, i.e. get rid of any conjectures as to the designer - the designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is outside falsifiable observation; get rid of all non-useful arguments - all the "we cannot explain it, so God did it". What remains is a reasonably sound scientific theory as a combination of irreducible and specified biological complexity and some cosmological arguments of a fine-tuned universe to suit life. This can be dealt with as natural science. The next problem is that the components of the theory have been individually and collectively falsified by observation. (Most biological examples used to claim irreducible complexity have been shown to be reducible - simplest proof, falsification by negative example. Specified complexity, being a mathematical model, has been disproved mathematically - but it can also be disproved logically. Fine-tuned universe design has been disproved experimentally.) I'm happy to give details on any of these if someone asks here on the forums. This doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't create the world, nothing about religion or theology here - it only means that Intelligent Design as a natural scientific theory (the part of it that is a natural scientific theory), as presented previously, has been falsified. (More or less amounting to the conclusion that there may have been God for all modern science knows, but the attempt to assert that current life couldn't conceivably have begun without a designer has been disproven.) The next question is if falsified scientific theories should be taught in schools. I personally believe that they should, in two cases - firstly, in theory/philosophy of science, to show how to disprove a theory secondly, if the theory is useful under some circumstances, and if it helps the understanding of the currently "most correct" theory Flatearthism or intelligent design could (according to me) fall in the first category, Newton's law of graviation in the second. However, if scientific theory as such is not taught (properly), I would not include anything from the first category in the curriculum, as it just serves to healthily confuse students. Also, it may be controversial to include I.D. as a falsified theory, because may people would understand that as an attack on Theism, which it is not. Re: Some things never change
by
Geoff Staples
on Tue 15 Nov 2005 06:29 PM CST | Profile | Permanent Link
Rothgar:
That was a joke. Teach intelligent design and mention that a previous incarnation of Adolph Hitler or space aliens could have been the inteeligent designer? You're supposed to laugh at how ridiculous that sounds, and yet... |
Recent Comments
Recent Entries
Logged-In Visitors
kevin123 - Mar 11, 05:30AM
imrozz - Mar 10, 05:12AM
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO - Mar 3, 02:37AM
Robert Frank - Feb 23, 04:21AM
Alice Wonderlamd - Feb 19, 11:03AM
joeanderson - Feb 19, 04:34AM
jyoti12 - Feb 18, 07:28AM
JoeAnne - Feb 17, 11:43AM
freyutss - Feb 17, 08:23AM
timada - Feb 15, 08:16AM
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
