I got a call tonight requesting my support of the God-ordained institution of marriage. If I support it, I was to press 1. If I felt the sanctity of man-woman marriage was worth saving, I should press 1. Right off the bat, it reminded me of those NRA surveys where only an idiot could possibly answer "no" to any of the questions and then at the end it says, "if you answered 'yes' to any of the above questions, you should give us your money now to protect your freedoms."
This "phone survey" however was even more presumptuous... there was never any other option than agreeing and pressing 1. Because I try to keep an open mind, I listened to the entire phone call and at the end I was invited to join this grass roots movement to save America and the American, God-ordained institution of man-woman marriage. Again, only one option. I couldn't press a number to indicate that I thought whoever was behind this was as radical as other fundamentalists in the news today. I couldn't ask any questions. I couldn't press a button or dial a number to indicate that I didn't want to be called by these people again. At least the NRA survey gave me the opportunity to check the "no" box even if its questions were loaded to the point where no one ever would.
I thought the national do-not-call register protected me from unsolicited calls like this, but, as it turns out, it falls into one of those categories that doesn't count. Technically, it was a sales call and it was definitely unsolicited, but there's no way I can remove my name from their list. I couldn't respond since it was recorded, and my only option was to call an 800 number if I wanted to join the movement. This call, the recorded voice explained, would get me on the mailing list to receive the actual petition.
What kind of legitimate organization with a legitimate cause conducts business like this? It's almost like toilet-papering someone's house, or lighting the flaming bag of poo on the front step. It's hit and run. Come to think of it, it's a little like the insurgents in Iraq. They fire off a few shots then high tail it out of there, or lob a few rockets into a base from miles away and no one ever saw them. They stir up some resentment, ruffle some feathers, maybe even cause some serious harm and then disappear into the periphery.
But that's not even what really bothers me about it. What really gets me is how irritatingly inconsistent their logic is. The sanctity of man-woman marriage?! By that do they mean the more than 50% divorce rate for "man-woman" marriages in this country? Or do they mean the sanctity that hetero marriages uphold when they stay together for the kids, but cheat on their spouses? Or is it the sanctity of marriages in which battered spouses stay because divorce brings too much shame, is not allowed by the church, or is scarier than leaving because our laws already favor it so much? What, exactly, is sanctified about heterosexual marriages?
Aside from these superficial inconsistencies, there are others more deeply rooted in this nation's history. No matter what the radical right fundamentalist caller believes about the Christian intent of our forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, a key forefather by most accounts, thought there should be a wall between church and state. So any time a person's argument is that God ordains it, then that's all the more reason the law of our nation should stay on the other side of that wall. If God truly ordains it, then we don't really need to worry about it anyway. God doesn't need man's laws to take care of business. There are plenty of countries that think otherwise. We invaded one recently, as if to say, "hey, you can't do that... you can't use your radical religious beliefs to rule your people!" We ignored another country where this is so even though their citizens flew planes into our buildings. Iraq had, and the Saudis have laws taken directly out of their holy book. By some interpretations (radical fundamentalist interpretations), those laws even justify those violent acts. Is that the sanctity of which my caller spoke? There are plenty of places in the world for people who think religion should shape law. America was founded by people who believed it should not.
Then there's the inconsistency of the party that has promoted the momentum of groups like that represented by the caller. Marriage, legally speaking, is defined by the states. How is it that the party of smaller government, the party that promises to reduce the government's intrusion into our lives fosters such intrusive thinking? It seems awfully flip-floppy, to borrow a term from their campaign rhetoric, to promote the usurpation of state powers but claim to support the "sanctity" of those powers. That's a flip-flop involving much more than poor word choice. That's flat out saying one thing but doing another. Most people call that lying.
In this country, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is no more than a legal partnership. Churches in America view marriage differently and the members of those churches are free to believe and practice whatever they want, but the law sees it as a partnership, nothing more. What the group who called me seems to propose is that we make our law look more like their interpretation of the Bible. Two problems with that in this country: 1) The liberty that churches have to define marriage is a direct result of Jefferson's efforts and desire to separate church and state. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's as simple as that. If Congress passes a law saying what kind of couples churches can marry, they are prohibiting a church's practices. 2) There is simply is no other justification for a ban on gay marriages than one based on religious beliefs... unless, of course, you consider "some people find it icky," to be a justification for constitutional change. So we either change our purposely non-religious constitution to be more religious, or we pass a law not based on religion, but that prohibits the exercise thereof. Either way, we're twisting what the founders said about Christian beliefs and ignoring what they said about keeping them out of the law. So do we believe in our constitution or not?
Merry Christmas!
Luth,
Out
6 comments:
Where to begin.... Jefferson made a passing remark in a personal letter about the wall of separation and after that letter came to light a generation or two ago, it has become the liberal mantra. Jefferson was a Deist, as were many other founding fathers. But, he included religious speech in his writings and public pronouncements, so he apparently saw value in including religious concepts in daily life and not divorcing it from public life.
And when it comes to the application of that little sentence in the constitution, how far are you going to take it? I'm starting a church that revolves around mind bending illegal drugs. I demand to use them because it restricts the exercise of my religion. God has called me to play Robin Hood, steal from the rich and give to the poor - a noble effort of helping my fellow man. Change the laws to allow me to do this.
Yeah, extreme examples, but 100 years ago the whole gay marriage issue would have been just as ridiculous. This is not an easy issue. At one time, even though society may not have been extremely religious, mores were steeply based on biblical principles as interpreted by mainstream religions. Today, we are a much more diverse society. Life doesn't fit into neat little boxes.
I suppose I have to admit to being a Fundamentalist, but I hate to use that term with its current connotations and associations. I oppose gay marriage, but also believe morality cannot be legislated. I share your opinon of the ethics of those who sent you that phone survey. I would vote no to gay marriage, but would not take up arms to enforce my belief.
But, I do take issue with your comparing these radicals who sent the survey with the terrorists in Iraq. These phone survey radicals are using words. The Muslim terrorists are using guns, rockets, decapitation. When the first reporter is decapitated by an anti-gay marriage proponent, I'll give you that comparison.
With the rhetoric the way it is these days, that violence against gays and proponents of their equal protection of the law is just a matter of time. The current administration and congressional leaders have not only done nothing to quell this wave, they've fanned the flames. (how's that for mixed metaphors?!)
Re: Jefferson's Biblical references - he, like many during his time understood that many in his audiences were illiterate. The only literary allusions he could make that his audience might recognize were Biblical references. Though HE arrived at his governmental theory through rational thought and debate and thorugh his own morals (yes, deists and atheists have morals), Jefferson probably felt the best way to persuade a largely Christian, illiterate audience was to use Biblical references. But to imply that because he used those references to support his argument makes him Christian, or believe that Christian living was what he had in mind for the nation is simply not supported. He used the tools he had to persuade. We can read no more into it than that. We can go by what he said explicitly (and made sure to add to the constitution): Keep church and state separate.
As far as your examples being extreme, I actually think we're on the same page here. Your drug addled Robin Hoods want to CHANGE existing law to allow for their interpretation of a religion. My example was a group of people who wanted to CHANGE our current law based on their interpretation of a religion. My whole point is, the law hasn't changed for this long, why change it now to appease a particular group... especially a group of drug addled Robin Hoods or extreme religious fanatics.
On that note I will apologize for offending you by the use of that term, but when it comes to imposing one's religion on national law, I don't know how else to describe it. That IS how the Iraqis made their law. That IS how the Saudis made their law. I've been there. I don't want to live like that. I believe in God, but I don't want the laws that rule us here to be derived solely by how others interpret His word. Our laws are just to help us get along and live together until we move on from this life. They don't have anything to do with Him. It's arrogant to believe otherwise and it's arrogant to believe I have a better line on His word than you do, so it's best to keep it out of Earthly governance. If you can explain it to me in terms of its inherent value, debate, defend, rationalize it, I'll support it. Use man's terms to justify man's laws. Render under to Caesar that which is Caesar's. But if the only justification is God's will, then it will be done with or without man's law so let's just leave it out.
I compared the phone survey people to the insurgents I personally dealt with because that's how they acted - neither of them ever actually harmed me and most of their attempts that I personally witnessed were almost humorous (that's another thing the media never reports), but their intent went against my beliefs and the potential for harm certainly existed. Most similes and metaphors don't bear close or extended inspection... it was intended to make a point. Actually now that I think about it, it was a better comparison than I had originally intended. Anyway, if the slippery slope argument is good enough to prevent sensible gun laws from being enacted in this country, then it's good enough to prevent the level of religious extremism middle eastern countries have from coming here too! They all started somewhere! I don't mean to offend, but if the sandal fits???
As far as fundamentalist being a bad word... I speak only in the current parlance. I agree that it shouldn't be a bad word. Believing in the fundamentals of one's faith SHOULD be a good thing and it is until it is forcefully imposed upon others... even through democracy! That's just numbers and one side loses. It's not consensus. That's why we should leave religious matters out of our rules. But seriously, I know what you mean.
In my mind "liberal" is still a good word. It simple means approach each situation according to the circumstances of that situation. Don't be so blinded by dogma that you can't react in the best way for the circumstances. These days that's been corrupted to mean situational ethics, as though that too is a bad thing, but it shouldn't be. After all killing a man in cold blood is wrong, but if I catching him raping my daughter, that's what I'll do - the situation calls for it, almost justifies it. Well, technically, that's revenge, not justice, but I'd do it anyway. Am I wrong for going against my belief that only God should decide who lives and who dies in that situation? Liberal, to me, means willing to keep learning. If that is currently defined as flip-flopping or weak, then that's what I am, but I'll never see it that way.
Ray, it's good to have you back!
Luth, that metaphor in your first paragraph was so mixed up I may send it to James Kilpatrick to use as one of his examples of horrendous writing. As much as I oppose gay marriage, I more strongly oppose physical violence against gays. The biggest problem is the radical extremists on any side who resort to extreme actions.
Jefferson; I didn't call him a Christian. Based on my understanding of what the Bible says, he wasn't. But, that is not for me to judge. Nor did I say he believed in Christian living for the nation. I said that he included religious concepts as a foundation for his philosophy, whether political or otherwise. You are right, he used language and literary devices that would be commonly understood.
You didn't offend me. Actually, when the term fundamentalist was first used, it was used derisively. Since the term has been twisted and redefined and used to identify extreme radicals, it has in effect taken on new meaning. Your definition is a good one, but that is not how it is used today. I just want to make it very clear that I in no way resemble those who fall into any kind of terrorist group. If we were attacked by some radical terrorist organization, regardless of their stripe, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you fighting them.
I've been reading biographies of the early presidents and just finished reading about Van Buren. Interestingly, back in the early 19th century the religious conservatives, people similar to me, lined up with the nascent Democratic party. High church people tended to side with the Federalists who teamed up with splinter group of the early Jeffersonian Republicans that formed the Whig party. Kind of reversed today.
Good to be back.
Now wait a minute... you said,
"he included religious speech in his writings and public pronouncements, so he apparently saw value in including religious concepts in daily life and not divorcing it from public life."
What I said is, don't confuse his public justification for his religion-free laws with his own belief or with the source of his ideas. It's simply not logical to believe that just because he used religious references that he believes in religion in government. The devil can use the Bible to support his plan, it doesn't mean he's a fan of it.
I don't believe Jefferson advocated religion-free laws. Again, the wall of separation statement was found in one private letter he wrote. Why base an entire political philosophy on one obscure statement rather than the body of his work? And, why would one divorce the source of their beliefs from their public position? That is disingenuous. The foundation of one's philosophy or beliefs defines who they are. That is an intrinsic part of their core being. It has to effect how they think and act.
I think we have gone too far in trying to appease minorities or those who believe differently than the majority. What caused Jefferson to fear mixing religion and politics? The state churches prevalent in Europe, Anglicanism in England, Roman Catholocism in France and Spain, Lutheranism in Germany, and so on. Even here in America some colonies had a state church that taxes supported. Ironically, Roger Williams, a Rhode Island Baptist preacher was one of the first to call for the end of state sponsored churches in the colonies. I say ironic because today it is us Baptists who are fighting the liberal establishment opposing the exclusion of religious reference in public. Jefferson and others merely were trying to avoid a state sponsored church that was supported by the taxes of all citizens and that had a controlling hand in the political process. Today, we are taking it to an extreme to exclude any and all public references to religion.
It simply is not logical to believe that Jefferson opposed any and all religious influence since he did use religious speech.
He wrote the constitution, and it is religion free. He was pretty careful about making it so. It is illogical to assume anything else from that. While it doesn't actually appear to be the case with Jefferson, leaders are often called upon to separate their own personal beliefs from what serves the greater good. I know it's tough to remember that given the leadership examples we've seen for the last couple of decades, but it's generally accepted as one of the burdens of leadership.
Post a Comment