Like I said, CCNL, what do Pagan marriage rituals have to do with the topic at hand? I think I know about Pagan marriage rituals - I've attended enough of them, and even presided at one.

Don't presume to think that you've "educated" me when all you did was copy some idiot's website.

Another debated fogged and maligned by ccnl1's dementia.

T. George wrote: "...the sanctity of every human life from conception to death,.." as bedrock to Christianism's take on abortion and end-of-life questions. ___________________________________________

1. Your deity, Jesus, lived in a time and place where abortion and exposure (infant abandonment) were both legal and common. He found the time to opine about a great many moral issues but neither of these practices got a gospel mention. If your god had no trouble with abortion, why do you presume to hold yourself to a different standard?
2. If human life is sacred, why does Christianism so willingly accept capital punishment?

Well at least we now have Athena4 educated in contemporary pagan marriage rituals. Her coven must be very proud of her.

Mission accomplished!!!

Well at least we now have Athena4 educated in contemporary pagan marriage rituals. Her coven must be very proud of her.

Mission accomplised!!!

Yatest, you wrote:

"That's rich--the Roman Catholic hierarchy (and most the Christian church leadership) couldn't muster any civil disobedience to respond to the holocaust..."

That's actually entirely incorrect. Sadly, large numbers of clergy were silent on that issue (often, I'm sure) owing to the same rationale with which many wish to silence them today.

August Clemens Graf von Galen, Bishop of Munster, publicly protested the Nazi euthanasia project (T4 Project) that murdered 70,000 handicapped people between 1939-1941. His protests set off a wave of protests that led Nazi leadership to shut down the project.

The most serious and nearly-successful plot on Hitler's life, which was coupled with a coup attempt, was led by Colonel Claus Schenck Graf von Stauffenberg, a devout Catholic who rankled at the Nazis' attempts to suppress religion and their mistreatment of Jews.

Archbishop Michael Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich preached continuously against the Nazi regime from its earliest days. He preached a series of sermons in Advent (December), 1933, and continued afterwards along the same effect: the Nazi regime was an abomination and anti-Semitism was anti-Christian, since Jesus was a Jew. For his troubles, he found his residence stormed and mobbed after the 9-10 November 1938 "Krystallnacht". The first assassination attempt against him by Nazis had come in 1934, so this sort of threat was an old hat to him. Among his wittier responses to the Nazi regime: when the Nazi regime extended the requirement upon Jews in neighboring Bohemia to wear the Star of David, the Archbishop ordered his priests to put armbands with the star upon every statue of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, or any of the apostles found in his archdiocese. Naturally, the authorities were not amused.

There are numerous other examples of resistance and of subterfuge against the regime, of sheltering Jews from it, and of working to undermine it. Most of these resisters had strong Christian faith, and many of those were Catholics: lay and clergy alike.

"It's indeed a shameful day to be Catholic in America but Christ's message of love and justice will win out. The Freedom to Marry is coming because God wants it."

0 for 31 so far.

Athena4,

No, lol, the document was written in 2009, not in the middle ages. It shares some ideas with the middle ages? Is that what you mean? Fine. What does that have to do with whether the ideas are correct or not, whether they accurate describe reality?

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Oh, gee. You can copy and paste a website. What's your point?

MY point is that this document is a throwback to the Middle Ages, and many Christian groups are opposed to it as well as non-Christian religions.

There are flaws in paganism???

More on handfasting:

The History-

"The Council of Trent changed Roman Catholic marriage laws to require the presence of a priest. This change did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation, and in Scotland, marriage by consent remained in effect.

By the 18th century, the Kirk of Scotland no longer recognized marriages formed by mutual consent and subsequent sexual intercourse, even though the Scottish civil authorities did.[1] To minimize any resulting legal actions, the ceremony was to be performed in public.[2] This situation persisted until 1939, when Scottish marriage laws were reformed by the 1939 Marriage Act and handfasting was no longer recognized.[3]

In the 18th century, well after the term handfasting had passed out of usage, there arose a popular myth that it referred to a sort of "trial marriage." A. E. Anton, in Handfasting' in Scotland (1958), finds that the first reference to such a "trial marriage" is by Thomas Pennant in his 1790 Tour in Scotland. This report had been taken at face value throughout the 19th century, and was perpetuated in Walter Scott's 1820 novel The Monastery."

Today_

"In the present day, some Neopagans practice this ritual. The marriage vows taken may be for "a year and a day," a lifetime, "for all of eternity" or "for as long as love shall last." Whether the ceremony is legal, or a private spiritual commitment, is up to the couple. Depending on the state where the handfasting is performed, and whether or not the officiant is a legally recognized minister, the ceremony itself may be legally binding, or couples may choose to make it legal by also having a civil ceremony.

Modern handfastings are performed for heterosexual or homosexual couples, as well as for multiple partners in the case of polyamorous relationships. Currently, handfasting is a legal Pagan wedding ceremony in Scotland, but not in England, Wales or Ireland.[citation needed]

As with many Neopagan rituals, some groups may use historically attested forms of the ceremony, striving to be as traditional as possible, while others may use only the basic idea of handfasting and largely create a new ceremony."

CCNL, what difference does it make to you whether Wiccans sign this fatwa or not? In fact, what business of yours is anybody else's religion except your own? Quit looking at the "flaws" in everyone else's faith and concentrate on changing your own. Mind your own business.

That's rich--the Roman Catholic hierarchy (and most the Christian church leadership) couldn't muster any civil disobedience to respond to the holocaust--suddenly they've developed a conscience to oppose same-sex marriage. Gay and lesbian couples must be trembling with the thought of Cardinals and Bishops going to jail to take a stand against marriage--well maybe, if they thought there'd be altar-boys in the prison showers.

Well now we know at least one pagan does not believe in handfasting and handparting aka the pagan ways that mimic much of today's Christianity's views on the sanctity of marriage.

See more about handfasting at http://www.answers.com/topic/handfasting?method=26&initiator=CANS

CCNL, Pagans are free to choose what their beliefs about marriage are. There is no Pagan "Bible" or Pope to tell us what to do. Frankly, I've never heard of the site that you quote. Any idiot can put up a website. Or, as the "New Yorker" once said, "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Or a retired crank whose wife bought him a computer to keep him out her hair.

I know Pagan couples who are monogamous, polyamorous, gay, straight, bi, etc. We do not judge their faith by who they sleep with. The Charge of the Goddess says that "all acts of love and pleasure are Mine." We insist on some boundaries - stay away from people who are underage, do not abuse, and "no means no". We are comfortable with our sexuality because we view it as sacred, not sinful.

Why is Obama's Administration is Anti-Religion? It's because they are Communists and Communists do not believe in God. Overwhelming proof to back this claim here: http://www.commieblaster.com/progressives/index.html

Hmmm, and what do Wiccans and other pagans think about the sanctity of marriage???

Based on the descriptions of pagan handfasting/marriage and handparting/divorce rituals described at http://www.herbalmusings.com/wiccan-handparting.htm, it is surprising that the coven witches have not signed the Manhatten Declaration since handfasting and handparting are actually very "Christian-like".

Actually they still can at http://manhattandeclaration.org

Hmmm, and what do Wiccans and other pagans think about the sanctity of marriage???

Based on description of pagan handfasting/marriage and handparting/divorce rituals described at http://www.herbalmusings.com/wiccan-handparting.htm, it is surprising that the coven witches have not signed the Manhatten Declaration since handfasting and handparting are actually very "Christian-like".

Actually they still can at http://manhattandeclaration.org/ .

Sounds more like a fatwa than a declaration to me. The only difference between you guys and Osama Bin Laden is a beard and a turban.

Thank you, both Prof. Georges and the other brave signatories for boldly proclaiming and standing up for the truth!!

How offensive for this Huckabee to invoke Dr. Martin Luther King and his words to promote this homophobic, intolerant "Christian" hatred.

Ecumenical? LOL! This "Declaration" represents the most conservative and imperialistic elements of three conservative Christian sects.

Manhattan? In your dreams. Manhattan is one of the most diverse cities on earth. It breathes tolerance.

Time will rid the Congress of religious interference. All it requires is an upright Constitutional lawyer. NonGod knows the words "upright" and "Congressman" don't go together.

@BPFT

People who disagree with me? Did you really say that?

That's like say Hitler had a little disagreement with the Jews.

Take that`tude and stuff it in all the orifices.

Founding Dean George noted:

"We ourselves set forth this appeal as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

As per most contemporary NT and historic Jesus experts, the only part he has correct is the crucified part.

To wit:

From the course notes of a large Catholic university's graduate theology class:

"Heaven is a Spirit state (no physical bodies abide so where is the resurrected, ascended body????)

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

continued below:

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes' conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

Some added tidbits:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity.

"Carstonio"? Where have we seen that ID before? Again beware for this is an anonymous blog and imposters abound.

Here come the religious extremists!

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council told Newsweek, "The point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce", .... “I’m a former police officer and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

How does no-fault divorce risk anyone's Religious Liberty?? He's ready to break the law because a couple decide that they no longer want to be married?? What happens when the city clerk stamps illegitimate on a birth certificate because the parents keep their pre-marriage names and he thinks his religion calls for women to take the man's name?

Don't want an abortion? a divorce? to marry someone of the same sex? Don't! You have no right to impose your narrow religious beliefs on me or anyone else. Join the Taliban and move to the Sudan if you don't like America!

@Bobbarnes

I don't understand why you're allowed to be "self-righteous" about your position and people who do not agree with you are not entitled to speak out. You're just as much as a bigot, if not more, since you're essentially telling people who don't agree with you to shut up. In contrast, I'm asking for you or anyone else to say something of substance to defend their view instead of just name-calling. Who's the bigot here?

@BPFT

Ummm, excuse me? I'm sick and tired of the "I'm a Christian, I can call you a pervert an a deviant and should not be call a bigot" schtick! Take your self-rightous `tude and stuff it!

These people will never realize that not everyone subscribes to their religion nor believes in their gods. They are truly the American Taliban. Will people wake up to see the slippery slope they keep trying to put us on? What's next, a return to slavery? Public stonings for adulterers? That seems to be the direction they would like to head towards.

i'm reposting since the earlier comment i posted got messed up (anything i put in with greater and less than signs was removed). i changed them to square brackets.

---

It is revolting to see [CPT_DOOM] compare himself and his fellow [non-Orthodox Christian] travellers to Reverand Martin Luther King Jr. and those who fought for equality. The ["Homosexual/Pro-Choice Agenda"] is nothing less than a manifesto against the Constitution and the freedom of religion for those of us who do not espouse the [liberal] religious and political agenda followed by [CPT_DOOM] and his fellow signers.

[CPT_DOOM] is free to believe that his [non-Orthodox Christian] lifestyle choice is superior to others, and to follow the teachings of that lifestyle choice in his own decisions and the paths he follows in life. [CPT_DOOM] has no right to demand that all Americans follow those same teachings, particularly as [...] there are millions of us who disagree with him. [CPT_DOOM] and all [those that oppose this] manifesto have committed themselves to declaring that those of us who [have Christian values] are inferior and cannot enjoy the full rights of citizenship, lest the very foundation of our society be threatened. The same arguments were made by those who chose lifestyles of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, to name just a few of the bigotries that have plagued this country. They were no more true 150 years ago than they are today, and [CPT_DOOM] covers himself in shame by embracing that which is worst in humanity.

@CPT_DOOM: I reposted your comment with your words edited in brackets to highlight the flaws in your arguments. See if you can identify the problem with your comment:

It is revolting to see compare himself and his fellow travellers to Reverand Martin Luther King Jr. and those who fought for equality. The is nothing less than a manifesto against the Constitution and the freedom of religion for those of us who do not espouse the religious and political agenda followed by and his fellow .

is free to believe that his lifestyle choice is superior to others, and to follow the teachings of that lifestyle choice in his own decisions and the paths he follows in life. has no right to demand that all Americans follow those same teachings, particularly as there are millions of us who disagree with him. and all manifesto have committed themselves to declaring that those of us who are inferior and cannot enjoy the full rights of citizenship, lest the very foundation of our society be threatened. The same arguments were made by those who chose lifestyles of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, to name just a few of the bigotries that have plagued this country. They were no more true 150 years ago than they are today, and covers himself in shame by embracing that which is worst in humanity.

The flaw? Your position is doing the exact same thing. It's self-refuting. All you're saying is that your position is superior, and your problem with the Christian position is that they're saying their position is superior. We're getting nowhere.

@Bobbarnes: "Taliban?" It seems you are name-calling again, as you did in another post (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/11/catholic_evangelical_leaders_team_up_to_fight_abortion_same-sex_marriage.html). I don't think that's very mature or beneficial to the discussion.

@Tahlib1: The God of the Christian bible doesn't want the "Freedom to Marry." Take a look and you'll see it clearly that it's meant to be between a man and a woman. That's the biblical stance, anyway. Perhaps you're not talking about the God of the bible... Additionally, there's no shame in being a Catholic in America and being a supporter of the Manhattan Declaration. There is no glaring contradiction between the two. Perhaps you just don't like Catholicism.

MLK would be horrified to hear what you are claiming to do in his name.

"It is revolting to see Mr. George compare himself and his fellow religious travellers to Reverand Martin Luther King Jr. and those who fought for equality."

I've quoted this blog entry before, but it's appropriate to quote it again now. It shows exactly why the MLK comparison is revolting.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/01/king-and-huck.html

The Taliban are thriving here in America. The "Manhattan Declaration" is their war cry against the freedoms of everyone else.

It's indeed a shameful day to be Catholic in America but Christ's message of love and justice will win out. The Freedom to Marry is coming because God wants it.

It is revolting to see Mr. George compare himself and his fellow religious travellers to Reverand Martin Luther King Jr. and those who fought for equality. The "Manhattan Declaration" is nothing less than a manifesto against the Constitution and the freedom of religion for those of us who do not espouse the conservative religious and political agenda followed by Mr. George and his fellow signers.

Mr. George is free to believe that his religious lifestyle choice is superior to others, and to follow the teachings of that lifestyle choice in his own decisions and the paths he follows in life. He has no right to demand that all Americans follow those same teachings, particularly as this Declaration makes it clear the signers understand there are millions of us who disagree with him. Mr. George and all the signers of this manifesto have committed themselves to declaring that those of us who are gay or lesbian are inferior and cannot enjoy the full rights of citizenship, lest the very foundation of our society be threatened. The same arguments were made by those who chose lifestyles of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, to name just a few of the bigotries that have plagued this country. They were no more true 150 years ago than they are today, and Mr. George covers himself in shame by embracing that which is worst in humanity.