All Comments (11)

Dear Antiluminous:

I would challenge two points you make.

(1) First you write, "Since the bible is over 2000 years old, humankind has been made aware of the Christian faith longer than any other faith in human experience."

Do you actually believe Christianity is the oldest faith, or at least the oldest faith known to humankind? That makes no sense.

-------

(2) Regarding rights to marry, later you write, "What is being asked of Christians based upon the 2000 year old Christian faith is like asking a member of the Islamic faith to eat a pork pie. No one would ever demand an Islamic person to eat a pork pie, but Christians are being asked to reliquish their faith to accomodate folks who are just unsure about what God thinks about them and their behavior."

Not prohibiting people from marrying is nothing like asking an Islamic person to eat a pork pie. Is someone asking you to marry someone of your same sex? Of course not. The parallel, to use your illustration, would be for an Islamic person to not STOP me from eating a pork pie, as a Christian. You argument is unclear to me.

I realize this is an old thread but if you return please feel free to respond.

Thank you for suggesting such a meaningful and inclusive focus, 'the fullness of life' as an aim or purpose in ethics. I celebrate how this can function, not only among different persons and human social groups, but also among humans and the constituents in the larger 'more than human' world around us. This focus is a call to do justice among oursleves and within creation as a whole. 'The fullness of life' suggests sustainability and changes in our society as a whole that necessarily must occur for sustainability to be a reality.

Luz, The DOI and the USC are clear: That all men are "created" equal by who, their "creator". Also, that all men are endowed by their "creator" with certain "unaliable" rights, meaning rights not given to them by human mortals.

The American government as structured in the United States Constitution was purposefully designed to create a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to do what, to prevent mortal men from negotiating or taking away rights bestowed upon "all" men by their "creator".

It is simple, Luz, and yes, America was founded as a Christian nation. Did the founders use the Koran as their guide to recognize the "creator", or did they use Buddism or any other religion? No, they used the Old and New testaments.

So your country wasn't stolen by any omnipotent being that I can possibly envision. America was founded to protect the rights of citizens given to them by God, not men. Men are not gods. Men are mortal. That is the concept of the idea of America because mortal men brought the greatest horrors to the witness of the founders and our founding fathers sought to break that humanist construct with the creation of America. No human can negotiate nor take away the rights bestowed upon all men by their creator.

Now, insofar as your comments about President Bush, in reality President Bush has been left of center politically as president. Name me one piece of legislation during President Bush's two terms in office that have benefitted Christians in America. Just one. I am not talking about faith-based welfare programs either because government was just seeking a more efficient venue to make such dispersements.

Was there any movement on abortion? No. What about the homosexual marriage question? Was there any movement on that? No. In fact, more states moved to allow homosexual marriages under Bush and provide expanded abortion definitions to include desired stem cell research than any other president before him.

To claim that President Bush has advanced a Christian agenda in the United States is laughable. You have got to be joking. The United States has moved steadily to the far left since 1987. Government has never been larger. Bureaucratic functionaries are appearing to influence every aspect of American life in ways not seen since the former Soviet and National Socialist Germany.

Open your eyes. We have programs now that try to regulate what we eat, what we watch on television, how we interact in society, a war against tobacco that mirrors the one implemented by Nazi Germany's health sector, euthanasia, expanded abortion, homosexual marriage agendas, a serious war on Christianity, a radical Marxist expansion of bureacratic government, and on and on and on.

So again, are you kidding me?

Roy, I am not aware of any information in the bible that talks about the rights of alcoholics to marry. There is however information about homosexuality and marriage itself. Since the bible is over 2000 years old, humankind has been made aware of the Christian faith longer than any other faith in human experience.

Now, here comes 1990 and homosexuals want to marry. The Christian derives that homosexual marriage is wrong not from their personal belief system, but from the 2000 year old bible. That may mean that civilization has had thousands of years to figure out why homosexual marriage is wrong, but Christians since 1990 are being asked to explore it again in civilization and for their faith to even recognize it.

That means Christians are being asked to rescind parts of the bible and that is blasphemy to them. It is like having laws on the books and then having citizens ignore them as well.

I recognize that homosexuals want to marry. I completely understand why they want to because they want the same rights as heterosexuals. However, when we have professors like Professor Diaz claiming with a broad brush that heterosexuality is discriminatory, that is pretty extreme, is it not? How many heterosexuals have really had any input into the homosexual marriage question based upon US population? Not many.

Professor Diaz didn't mention this small oversight, but the US Constitution doesn't guarantee any citizen the right to have sex. The US Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee the right to have sex, other than the nation-state interest of heterosexual couples to have children to the direct benefit of the state.

If you are a man seeking sex with any woman, do you have that right? No. The only way that you can have sex is if a women consents to it. It is no different with homosexual couples. Like the heterosexual, the homosexual has no guarantee to sex in the United States.

That is the point that Professor Diaz misses and why sexual behavior is not a civil right. The reason why sexual behavior is not a civil right is because if it were a civil right, it would encroach upon the rights of other citizens who wouldn't want to particpate in such arrangements. You can't force anyone to have sex with you, but in America today, Christians are being forced to accept a breaking of their core beliefs over sex and how it interacts with society based upon the bible.

Now as a scientist I say that homosexual marriage is irreconcilable with Christianity and is yet another incredibly divisive wedge between the people. That isn't because Christians are discriminating against homosexuals. It is because the bible has already instructed Christians for 2000 years about homosexuality.

So the response to that from the secular left is to say that not only are Christians discriminating, but all heterosexuals. Not only is that ludicrous, but delves into the realm of heterophobia.

I don't care what people do in their bedrooms. That has nothing to do with the US Constitution. But what we are seeing is a situation where folks want Christians not only to accept homosexuality, but to "publicly" accept it in violation of their faith, ie, having homosexual marriages in Christian churches, gay clergy, etc.

What is being asked of Christians based upon the 2000 year old Christian faith is like asking a member of the Islamic faith to eat a pork pie. No one would ever demand an Islamic person to eat a pork pie, but Christians are being asked to reliquish their faith to accomodate folks who are just unsure about what God thinks about them and their behavior.

I think that it all boils down to folks wanting to be accepted in society and that is a healthy thing. But using political force against Christians to demand their compliance against issues that resound strongly with their faith is no different than asking an Islamic person to eat a pork pie.

Antiluminous,

It is disingenuous to make the claim that "only Christian groups are prevented from competing on an open playing field in the modern American secular nation-state system that is becoming more like the former Soviet than an entity produced in the age of the enlightenment." In fact, it's absurd. Is George W. Bush secular? Were Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush? Just how many people would be elected to office after proclaiming their lack of religious belief - a few perhaps, but not most and certainly none to the highest offices. You claim a victimization that does not exist.

To claim America as a Christian state, as opposed to one founded by people who mostly followed Christian religions, is to misunderstand both history and Christianity. Christianity is not inherently democratic, it includes nothing that supports or negates the concept of rule of law or the natural rights of man. Christianity is about individual redemption and adoration of God, neither of which require democracy or freedom. The foundation of our Constitution and our democratic ideals are found in the Enlightenment – a time when people pushed through the darkness imposed by theology. The natural rights of man, the concept of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” were radical departures from the rule of kings ordained by God.

Christianity is a powerful foundation for Western culture and, so, for the United States – but it is not the only one, nor the primary. Our legal code is based on Common Law, not Christian beliefs, and includes such integral concepts as trial by jury, a pre-Christian concept. The closest connection we can make to America somehow being a religiously-based country is that so very many people came here to escape the imposition of others’ religious beliefs on their way of life – and, believe it or not, that includes you trying to steal my country in the name of your God.

Aniluminous,
Christians aren't being asked to change their personal beliefs but rather to stop cramming them down the throats of others through a political agenda pushed from the pulpit. Frowning on others behavior is quite different than trying to change the US constitution to mandate Christian extremist ideals. Christian extremists are selective in their discrimination. Why don't we see a Christian call for a constitutional amendment prohibiting alcoholics from marrying? Certainly the threat of alcoholic marriages on the family is far worse than gays marrying. Why don't we see a Christian call to tax the megachurches which are billion dollar enterprises. Christian extremists are the type of hypocrites Christ would have thrown out of the temple - mean spirited, arrogant and manipulative in the use of scripture to further their own greed and to force others to abide by their rules of behavior. Frown all you like but keep your definition of morals for others out of the constituion and legislation.

My thought is that Professor Diaz beautifully expresses what many "religious" folks fail to fully and deeply appreciate; that for life in the world to manifest true spirituality requires we live it from within, not seek to master and impose
from outside. Her experience of the nuns in her article speaks with simplicity and profound insight of this transmuting potential. Every human being of every religious pursuasion doing so will give birth to the world of which we all mostly dream..... and yearn.

The notion that this is a "Christian nation" is particularly divisive in that Christians believe that their faith is the sole path to salvation. From that it necessarily follows that all others are false.

The phrase is used mostly by individuals and institutions that would, were they endowed with such authority, impose their religious beliefs on the country as a matter of law and would, it is suggested, have the Courts interpret the law and Constitution with a copy of The Bible sitting on the bench, beside the Constitution

The potential danger to religious and cultural freedom posed by that mode of thinking was made clear to James Madison during the ten years [circa, 1776-1786] it took for him to persuade the Virginia House of Delegates to enact Jefferson's, Statute for Religious Freedom, which was steadfastly opposed by the various Christian sects, each wanting the State to Establish their particular institution. The First Amendment, which was written by Madison, later, reflects and attempts to protect against the mentality revealed to him during his experience in the Virginia Legislature.

The irony of religious institutions rejecting a Statute, designed and written to protect them from government and/or sectarian interference with their freedom to worship ought not be lost.

Wow, heterosexism is discriminatory? Where have we heard that before!

I become troubled when folks try to claim that Christians are discriminatory, as if they are saying that the mere existence of Christianity means it must discriminate. What is Christianity discriminating against? Someone's self-perceived "rights" to do whatever they want to in society?

Think about it. Is frowning upon the behavior of 1.4 million Americans who used Crystal Methamphetamine last year discriminating against them? What about all the Americans that use other illicit drugs? Does Christianity have to respect that and if Christianity doesn't, is it discriminating?

What we are seeing then in the United States is an impossible standard being handed to Christianity, and that standard is to ignore every moral or immoral choice that Americans make in society and also to unconditionally accept every other religious belief outside of Christianity, regardless if Christians have any knowledge of it or understand it at all anyway.

Professor Diaz's utopia cannot exist because it is the balkanization of the United States based upon the false-utopia construct. In every human being there is some behavior that will be unacceptable to society, but only Christians need be the ones to ensure that every behavior is legitimized through the sacrificing of their discipline in faith. To not do so is to be "intolerant" of the vast swarms of other belief systems, including those of competitors, where that standard is not applied to groups outside Christian ones.

Since politics is the healthy competition over limited resources by competing groups, only Christian groups are prevented from competing on an open playing field in the modern American secular nation-state system that is becoming more like the former Soviet than an entity produced in the age of the enlightenment.

Professor Diaz's vision will require great expenditures and tremendous applications of force by government to enforce upon the people. This seems to be the direction that America is going and it has not worked in any other country in history. I wonder why folks think it will work here. If it doesn't work out, our children and their children will be the ones that will have to deal with the fallacy of intellectual utopian constructs.

"What the different religions do is provide us with the images, metaphors, examples that help us to understand values."

Thank you for writing a message about the real meaning of the word 'values'. Your warm message is greatly appreciated.

I believe one of the most ironic things that takes place during the month of December, from my Muslim female perspective, is the fact that CHristians who during the rest of the year descriminate against us scarved Muslim women & assume we are down trodden due to our scarves, will erect Nativity scenes or participate in live Nativity scenes. Then turn to us & look down their nose because of the way we Muslim women dress. It is hypocritical considering the reverence shown to the way the figures in the Bible dresses. If it is "down-trodden" to wear the headcover, Mary, mother of Jesus, should be viewed in the same way. Yet she & the others within the framework of Christiandom aren't. It illustrates the religious biogtry that hides behind "feminist" concerns for Muslim hijabis.

Salam, Anisah of SOuth Dakota