The Remnant
I finally got to see some cousins I only interact with on the interwebs for the first time in years last night. Of course, I pushed in some talk of politics, which focused on the failures (or, from the party’s point of view, their perceived successes) of today’s Repulican party. We agreed that the generation our parents’ age seems to be missing something about the present Republican party and their goals that leaves the baby-boomer and later generation mostly blind to the agenda they are pushing forward. It is not a cognitive dissonance (which I have always thought to be a huge problem in the Democratic party), it is a failure to realize that the entire party has been hijacked by the fundamentalist religious right and the mainline partisan agenda has been destroyed and rebuilt to something that we can hopefully kill before it rears its ugly head…
So Republicans, before you jump on the idiotwagon that has become the laughing stock of the world and get all offended, hear me out without a reflexive reaction of rejection. There is something you are missing about your party (if you have any sense at all): The southern fundamentalist Christian right has decided that this nation is a Christian one and accordingly, all other values should be negated by literalist interpretations of the bible. The issues of literalist interpretation and biblical exegesis are the topic of a different future blog post, but as far as politics are concerned, disastrous consequences are entailed in the melding of religion and politics, especially when that religion is portrayed as potent xenophobia or unforgiving stagnant moral precipices of holier-than-thou judgement.
The fundamentalist bible believers have taken the Republican party by storm and with the evangelical movement at the helm, the party has failed. No longer are respectable leaders facing off against the Democrats. Instead, Republicanism has become the party of moral hypocrites of both sexual and financial nature, science-rejecting & reason-denying fanatics, and power-seeking businessmen. No longer are thoughtful Republican senators and representatives passing legislation with family-building agendas and societal improvement. Because thoughtful Republicans who divorce politics from religion don’t exist. Instead, the political forces that drive these men have degraded to incoherent religious babbling and accusations of anti-Christianity while pushing bills that harbor religious resentment at anything not explicitly Christian.
[Christ Himself said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; give unto God what is God’s.” Jesus did not encourage followers to infiltrate the government and seek detruction of effective or even disfunctional government systems. He did not seek office or push others to do so to change things for the Jews on terms of the macropolitical. Instead, He professed that His followers were to convert human hearts with purity of love and understanding. With the above quote, Jesus deliniated between religion and politics in a way that could not have been clearer. He did not say “what is Caesar’s is God’s,” or “what you give Caesar is in relation to what should be God’s.” With this quote and millenia of experience in hand, the Catholic Church has always stressed separation of church and state, and in fact, it was originally a Christian idea. To have the Christian right arguing that religion should be intertwined with political theory is not only a slippery slope to oppressive theocracy that history has taught us is bound to fail, but a farce in the eyes of the modern reasonable Church. For very informative discussion of this, see Dinesh D’Souza’s defense of a holistic Christian religion in What Makes Christianity So Great and Phillip Yancey’s more personal religious account in The Jesus I Never Knew.]
I am actually offended when people associate me, a pronounced conservative, with the Grand Old Party, because of the Christian transformation it has undertaken…
Many thoughtful conservatives are incredulous at today’s media due to the treatment the media gives the Republicans, but I assure you this astounded reaction is unwarranted. (There are definitely dangers to the liberal media’s portrayal of the right, especially the demonization of certain sides of issues which are by default associated with the conservative side of the aisle. But, for the most part, the media has not totally failed to address the Republicans and Fox News as what they are: puppets of the fundamental, evangelical, Christian bible-thumpers.) The party is broken, probably to no end. This is not the good type of Christianity we are talking about here. It is the power-seeking, corrupted religion of the fearfully judgmental. It is those who no longer follow the person of Christ, but reverted back to the judgmental and emotional views of Old Testament fear as a motivator instead of New Testament forgiveness and love. Most poignant to this discussion is the results of some of this bible-thumping Christian policy. There are several irresponsible and downright terrifying ramifications of mixing politics with religious morality so fully:
- The deliberate contest of explicitly scientific ground to the end of supposed ‘defense’ of Christian values. The best example of this is the push by young earth creationists to outlaw the instruction of evolution in their children’s schools. Defying reason, logic, and scientific theory, many Republican legislators propose bills that deny courses which do not teach directly from a literally-interpreted document which was oral for a minimum of 65 years in NT sections (a maximum of an estimated 3000 years in certain OT sections) before it was written down and then translated hundreds of times to the current versions. Sarah Palin surprisingly was not laughed out of the presidential race for voting several times to disband evolution in schools in favor of creation stories that entail only third-grade analysis skills to refute. She wasn’t laughed out of the race on this ridiculous issue because many Republicans agree with her. (Tangent! Although I know Palin to be very misinformed based on her voting record, I was a bit offended at how she was portrayed by the media. The undertones that the leftist coverage of the presidential election, and even to today, rang a deep ridicule of the powerful and feminine woman. From what she wore, to how she spoke, to the fact that she has several kids she often talked about in a motherly fashion, to how damn good looking she is, Palin was painted into a corner by nearly every media outlet for qualities that made her exceptional in the realm of powerful women – qualities of femininity. Apparently powerful women must be androgynous or masculine to be respectable. Look at Hilary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, Helen Thomas, etc. They are all basically dudes with dresses. Ironic that the liberal partisanship that has always expressed equality of women and furthering women’s rights would attack the aspect they claim most to protect, her womanly-ness. I thought that attack was unfair and cheap, and a pronounced slam to the stay-at-home moms and feminine archtype that women have become afraid to be bcause it does not denote ‘success’ in the modern meaning. Back from the tangent…) The denial of science and things that are right in front of their faces is not promising for the future of the Republican party. What happens when policy that has been passed by the GOP’s reps fails? Will they deny that failure even though the statistics indicate otherwise? I just found this and don’t know whether to fall out of my chair laughing because it is so funny, or go punch a baby in the face because I am so mad…
- Pre-tribulational (dispensational) Premillennialism. John Darby, father of the Baptist Evangelist Church, formulated this theory of three to seven dispensations that differentiated time between significant biblical events. Current Christian denominations disagree on which events start which dispensations and even how many there are, but essentially for the seven dispensation theory, there is a dispensation for the time between creation and the casting from Eden, the casting out of Eden and Abraham, Abraham’s death and the Great Flood, the Great Flood’s landing and the Exodus to the Promised Land, the Promised Land and the birth of Christ, and the death of Christ and the armageddon or rapture. The seventh, thus the ‘premillennialism’ bit, is the thousand years that Christ is supposed to reign after the rapture and judgment day. This is all taken from literalist interpretations of the Bible. The Final Disposition, called the Zionic Disposition, is outlined in Revelation, which the evangelicals take to be literal truth. After the rapture, or sudden event where all of the holy people are suddenly taken to heaven right out of their clothes and cars and everyday lives, Jesus the Son of God is to come down and rule the earth in perfect harmony for 1000 years. The way to usher in the rapture and second coming of Christ is, as Revelation professes explicitly, with the destruction of Israel. Sounds bat shit crazy to me, but don’t quote me on that. (To get a full grasp on this concept, I read the Left Behind series of 16 books, which are around 500 pages each. It is really long and a great story if you are looking for some interesting reads, but these people actually believe these books are what will happen, to the event, based on Revelation.) So we have this prophecy that political agents in the most powerful nation on the planet believe to its core and with unwavering faith. And the U.S., as the largest supporter of Israel in the world, from a Republican side, has this underhanded motive of feeding Israel this arsenal until a conflict can be provoked which will allow the demolition of all of the Jews there and the final 1000 years of humanity will begin. How is it not terrifying that a southern fundamentalist Republican senator could be elected and have his thumb on the firing button of the nuclear arsenal of the USA, thinking that by destroying Israel he would be helping Jesus come to earth? As far as potential goes, this aspect of the Christian right inserted into politics is by far the most volatile and has the ability to dwarf any evils committed thus far by Islam…
- The condemnation and purely negative engagement with the gay community in this country and abroad. More and more, the Christians’ talk of homosexuals in this country edges toward genocidal hate speech, again, in an area that is biologically causal in nature and therefore has no redress or elemential standard in a theistic view of free will (deterministic theologies cannot be accounted for by this, but a majority of modern Christianities believe being gay is a choice, which as recent fMRI studies of human neurology have shown and sociology implies, is almost entirely incorrect, here, here, here, and here and a million more if you look for yourself). The phobic scapegoating that Christians in this country are armed with resembles Nazi Germany’s preoccupation with the Jews after World War I. We all know what that led to in the early to mid 40’s. Sure, the Jews and gays are plausable causes of a few certain problems their respective countries have faced (a crash course for those interested in the roots of German pre-WWII antisemitism and its causes here, a more full analysis in Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust by William Brustein, and coming to the present, one might blame gays for the spread of AIDS in this country), but neither are probably the cause, nor do they capture the entire picture (or even a significant portion) of why Germany failed or why the USA is well on its way to failure. Even so, the religious right blames the breakdown of traditional families, the failure of sexual ethics, the spread of disease, the rising occurance of child molestation, the corruption of nature, and many other things on the gay community. This fear can only reach a certain point until the issue boils over and the fundamentalists propose some type of ultimate solution. Potent as Christ’s message was, the perversion it has undergone on this issue alone is astounding, especially when considering who Jesus’ closest friends were…
…And the list goes on.
I don’t mean to condemn, exactly. But a warning is in order. The Republican Party is now a dangerous ghost of what it once was. The Republican Party is now the Fundamentalist Christian Bible-Believing Evangelical Party, which is the most dangerous party in the world at this time. The Republican Party is now dead, and thankfully so. Anyone associating themselves with the party should be aware of this fact, because it is now fact. It is time to move on and reformulate what conservativism and liberalism should be…
Here are some links for today:
- Naming your sons with unique or feminine names greatly increases the likelihood that they will spend time in jail.
- This Hellen Keller simulator is so not funny…
- Take this science knowledge quiz to see how scientifically literate you are in these modern times. It is pretty easy and only takes five minutes.
- The only political party in this country is the business party. More on that in the next post…
- Although my view may not be entirely wide enough to encompass the whole picture, I find the black southern Baptist churches to be historically hypocritical due to the judgment they bestow on the gay community with supposedly bible-backed reasoning (granted these churches are not alone in this, it is just the case that those people who have endured much of the same ridicule and disgust by other in-groups should know better than to turn around and do it to the gays…). It is unfortunate that the collossal travesty that was slavery of Africans in this country did not have a lasting effect as to prevent such labelling and condemnation of an entire community like the gays. Just a thought…
Update:
I was asked to source some of the dispensational millennialism claims that I made today. Here we go:
- Most applicable wiki entry here. Note the known proponents.
- John Hagee, spiritual guru of John McCain, associated with CUFI and apocalyptic speech here.
- Salon covered it here.
- Grist.beta names several reps and senators here.
- A theological coverage here.
- A discussion by Bill Maher:
I got an email from my Dad that follows:
So, if the gop is dead what do you call the other side???
FULL OF LIFE!
INSPIREING!
If your are so full of hate for the gop how can you call yourself conservative. ? it makes no sense.
Is there nothing you can see that is good about conservatives?
Obviously NOT.
Your vitriolic criticism of the gop truly shows your love for liberals…dah!
Not sure why you are ALL negative here…have a bad day?
why don't you write how much you love obamunism?
but don't forget to include how your kids will be paying the debt off their entire life.
How about something positive – – –
the Messiah has arrived!
Free health care for everyone just around the corner.
You talk about the moral hypocrites, humm, the very priests you love weren't referenced but the gop – they all have to be holy-er than …even priests – squikee clean ? OooKkk…
The evil rich business men –
but you left out the part about how they GIVE more to charity than any lib by far. Oops.
Oh and they spend lots of $$$ – creates jobs:))
Why don't you encourage the rape of the rich. Its very PC these days.
–
Not sure where you get this hijacking of the gop by the evangels…I know none but do know lots of non believer conservatives – basically everyone I work with. Somehow they don't have any interest in religion but they are strong conservatives – you imply they got hijacked by something though…OR maybe, just maybe, they have a brain or half a brain?
Kinda wierd that thinking thing – not much like moron libs – no offence.
You are really hung up on this creationism thing and seem to have lost the fact that IF THERE WAS NO CREATION (some where some time)…THERE IS NO GOD – maybe you could explain. – You do still believe in GOD don't you? I don't know anyone who really believes Genesis is literal – does the Pope? A wacko example from the internet is not going to convince anyone of anything. The landing on the moon was fake too. You are falling right in line with the Bible doubter media – just the way they want it.
Where do you get this crap – some southern Republican with a nuke blah, blah- oh my! are you serious? I guess the moon landing was fake.
Your last paragraph makes no sense at all… once again, where are these people you talk about I really want to know…have you been secretly been hiding out with them or are you another sucess of the religion hating socialist media propaganda?
Publish this and your response on your site.
To which I responded:
Yours is of course a knee-jerk reaction. Just as I expected. So visceral and predictable…
You are in denial of a clear and obvious fact: the party has been hijacked. Sure, your friends do not classify and maybe you don't even know any evangelicals, but your experience has led to a confirmation bias that is not typical of the reality of the situation. Look up the phrase confirmation bias. Simply because you do not know anyone who takes Genisis literally certainly does not mean they do not exist. I don't know any movie stars. That doesnt mean that they are some kind of leftist propaganda creation. How do you explain the rise in homophobic speech? What do you have to say for dispositional premillenialism, or do you need a refresher course on Baptist theology? What explains the modern trend of atheist uprising? Why is the media so anti-conservative now? Why do so many senators openly express distain for evolution, gays, and other scientific realms? Why are we so vigorously concerned with Israel? What motives do we have for being involved there? There is no oil, and as the Darfur situation has shown, we sure do not get involved in foreign affairs to protect human life. Why are you, a former biologist, siding with science deniers? Why are you, a person of rational thought, siding with politicians, kings of liars? There is no conspiracy brewing against the Republicans; they are sabotaging themselves with issues that should not even be on the table.
You didn't even read the issues as presented. You also, again, as always, fall victim to affirmation of the disjunct, a propositional fallacy. Simply because I say the Republican Party is a shit show, you assume that I would say the Democratic Party is suceeding. In fact, when I said one is weak, it does not entail that the other is not also corrupt or similarly failing. It simply means what I said, that the one is weak. So stop with the 'YOU LOVE DEMOCRATS' accusation. And that fallacy is always in addition to the appeal to ridicule you use in almost every argument you make. Look those up. Actually, screw that, here is a list you should study before you present your next argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I can't believe you think Obama is so different than any other president we have ever had. The guy is a puppet of corporate America, and since you love big business, he is shoving it down our throats. The government and the federal reserve are just big businesses that are screwing us in a different way then they were before. You of all people should see that Bush's Administration simply bled us in a different way by letting businesses get big in the public sector. Obama is simply centralizing where the businesses' power lies – in the hands of the feds. There is just as much big business as there was before, it is simply now glaring us in the eye in the form of big brother government.
You fail politics 101. The only party in this country is the business party.
I don't see anything else in your ramblings worth responding to. I await a decent reply, if you have it in you.
-kj-
There's a lot to discuss here. A lot of this I am, admittedly, very ignorant of (I'm still not sure what Dispensationalism is, for instance, or if beyond investigating it as a belief potentially harmful to Christian life or perhaps, as the case may be, to our country, I should even care.)
Since I am ignorant of politics by and large I cannot counsel you politically. I can only acknowledge that–IF the Dispensationalism you cite and describe is truly rampant in the Republican party, and likely to play out in political action, there is something to worry about.
However I can and will raise theological/religious questions.
First I would like you to define (in a future post, if you will) the word Fundamentalist in a Christianity context. Please give three examples, either of a specific church congregation with a statement of beliefs you consider to be Christian-Fundamentalist, and/or people with similar backing of their Fundamentalist beliefs. Fundamentalist is perhaps one of the most abused words since its inception, not unlike Feminism in my book, and here I see it bandied about almost as an insult. So I would like a definition. I do not care if it is accurate historically, as I sometimes arbitrarily choose to do, but I do care that you give me a concrete definition.
In fact, if you could do the same for Biblical literalism, I'd be much obliged.
I would also recommend that you make sure you know where legitimately non-fundamentalist Christians lie on the subject of homosexuality:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
There are places here and in the past that I have caught a definite tendency for you to associate mere disapproval (as opposed to political action motivated thereby) with evangelical, literalist fundamentalism (ELF, heh) and I'm not sure how true-to-life said tendency is.
I would also remark that the Catholic Church does see its own notions about homosexuality as being a part of natural law which is indeed testified to in the Scriptures and (if I have my Catholic philosophy correct) animated/propelled by the First Mover, a.k.a. God. This is indeed the same justification in Catholicism, if I have my Catholic ethics right, for being a pro-lifer. So the question is, if someone's talking about natural law, but it's natural law within a religious framework (considered, as in the Catholic worldview, animated by God!) is there really a guard against its political application?
I personally disagree with your notion of what separation of Church and State means. To me it means the government not giving endorsement to one religion over another. It does not to my mind imply a lack of the influence of religious morality or religion-influenced morality (Catholic natural law, again) on our nation's policies. Now this also means that to me Christian social justice principles are more than given a go to influence our policies as well. Would you be complaining if we were talking about abortion or our economic system instead of homosexuality? If not, why not?
I apologize if any of this comes off as too harsh; you have hit two or three of my theological/philosophical pet peeves at once, and so I'm coming across as a lot more angry than I actually am.
In the interest of taking back some of my presumptuousness, I'd like to add:
Would you be complaining if we were talking about abortion or our economic system instead of homosexuality? If not, why not?
And if so, why so?
If it's alright I'd also like to add this:
Note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with the basic thrust of your post at all. I am calling you (or attempting to call you) on several theological and philosophical points and asking you for clarification of where you stand.
One last thing:
I should acknowledge that my posting of only the Catholic Catechism to discuss non-literalist Christianity was in fact a rather weak piece of evidence, as while it is a large portion of officially non-literalist Christianity it is not by far the whole of it; I acknowledge that many non-literalist Christians and even (possibly) Christian churches do not view homosexuality as a sin, but I also put forth that many Christians who do not in any reasonable sense qualify as literalists do accept homosexuality as being a sin, many of them in harsher terms than that of the Catholic Church. Two prominent examples of non-Catholics doing so would be Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo.
In short I'm not sure the problem there is literalism–the problem there is Christian teaching being taught with its proper nuances, and balances, and balances of extremes: for instance, hate the sin and love the sinner.
Whether I am right in my point, my weak presentation of evidence (which I still recommend reading) notwithstanding, is for you and, uh, the internet to judge, I guess. I just thought I should jump on one last time and clarify/acknowledge my weakest point of reasoning. If you want more examples of non-literalist churches and their official teachings, I'll see what I can do.
Note: The comment format is horrible. Real pain in the ass not to have any formatting tools….
Daniel,
I knew you would have a stiff response to the post, though I would have liked to keep it political in nature. I have several responses, but I don't know if I can satisfy your depth. We shall see…
First, I use the words evangelical and fundamentalist interchangeably. It is not the nature of the word that yields such an association, but a stark reality that in practice, the fundamentalists are evangelical in a way that makes even the Catholic Church green with envy. Evangelical is not a problem – in principle, that is. In practice, many evangelical churches – and even the Catholic Church at times – disregard respect for other religions and isolate certain groups of people in a purposeful fashion that is ironic given their mission. Fundamentalism, or a select few of the fundamental principles these protestant churches agreed upon – notably in the context of which I am writing, the inerrancy of the bible combined with Sola Scriptura – are a problem, especially when these Churches have no directional body like the Magisterium. (The definition of fundie is a group of believers who have, per 19th and 20th century protestant movements and in reaction to events like Vatican II, agreed on the several fundamental principles that must not be yielded on to be Christian. These beliefs differ in their totality, but for the most part include the two I listed above, plus several harmless beliefs like the virgin birth, Jesus' atonement of sins, and the possibly not-so-inert belief in the immanent return of Christ to earth. You are right that I use the word in almost perjorative fashion, since I see some of these churches as a corruption of the greatest historical thing we have been given – the bible and Authority of the Catholic Church. And I realize through this that it may sound like I dislike all protestant Churches, but that is not the case. Mainstream Lutherans are basically Catholics minus a few dogmatic and definitive doctrinal key beliefs. Love those guys. And love Jews and many other Christian Churches and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and on and on. I dislike biblical literalism and unwavering yet world-opposing faith…)
Biblical literalism, or as they have coined 'bible-believing' is the practice these evangelicals/fundies use when approaching the bible that is integral to the definition of 'fundamentalist.' This view is a corruption of Sola Scriptura by an incorporation of biblical inerrancy such that it is not simply the text that we should follow before tradition, it is the literal text, in every respect, that we should follow word-for-word, in law and teaching, to glean a view of the world. This view is all that counts in the world to these people, and instead of integrating experience of the world that might give a glimpse of the numinal, these groups have an almost gnostic view of the world. They hate the natural sciences if there is any discrepancy between it and but a word in the bible. Or anything else that might alter the way the world should be looked at through a biblical lens or vice versa.
Three examples? Cornerstone Pentacostal Church, Westboro Baptist Church, and Thomas Road Baptist Church should suffice. You will find these churches are very much a negative force of Christianity in the world, detrimental to the very message Christ proclaimed. If you have any questions about them, let me know or do a bit of research…
In reality, I see this type of belief in anything to be easier and a more immature way of dealing with the nuances of what the world and spiritual reality are truly like. Obviously, I am biased in a Catholic direction. But without an authoritative body to direct these churches (most are Baptist-affiliated, though not controlled but by their own created management) and with the hate or fear of the Catholic Church in mind, the beliefs have become cheap imitations of the 2000 years of work the Church has done. And not only cheap, but dangerously anti-(small 'c')-catholic and isolationist. I think this view is detrimental to the faith on the greater scale, and reject fundamentalist views in almost totality.
As far as homosexuality is concerned in the Church, I respectfully disagree with the Church. It might be the only issue with which I do not line up behind Christ's Bride. But, as you know, encyclicals are not dogma, nor are many segments of the CCC. For those readers that do not know (Sorry Daniel, I know you already know this, but others do not), there are four different types of Church teaching (Dogma, Definitive Doctrine, Authoritative Doctrine, Provisional Applications of Church Doctrine, Church Discipline, and Prudential Admonitions). In Church teaching, ‘dogmas are the most authoritative teachings for the simple reason that they facilitate divine revelation, the substance of God’s saving offer to humankind.’ The assent by a believer to dogma is one done by way of faith and in order to be a part of the Catholic Church, one must accept dogma as right and true in reference to revelation. Failure to do so results in heresy and implicit excommunication from the Catholic Tradition (though not necessarily a push outside the realm of God’s saving grace). An example of rejecting dogma is rejecting the Incarnation of Jesus.
Definitive doctrine, the second type of belief, includes teachings that do not themselves mediate divine revelation, but are necessary to safeguard and expound revelation. The Magisterium holds that the believer accepts and holds these tenets of the Catholic faith as true, and disagreement with these premises will not necessarily ever result in excommunication or formal heresy, but it is close. These principles of the Catholic faith are also very important and rejection of them can lead to inconsistency within the person’s belief. An example of this doctrine is belief in the communion of saints.
Getting to the point, homosexuality falls under the purview of the third category of Church teaching: authoritative doctrine. Authoritative doctrine is the giving of the laity of ‘a religious docility of the will and intellect’ to teachings of the Church concerning particularly the moral realms of life. These teachings are not infallible, but many follow them because they feel ‘right’ and truly the Christian way to do things. ‘The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into their religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of Church error.’ Failure to abide by these premises is often believed to be sinful by the Church unless several criteria are met. The appropriate process for rejecting a particular belief that the Catholic Church holds to be true follows along a different set of guidelines in order to ensure rejection of a belief is true and appropriate. These criteria include (but are not limited to): willingness to engage in further research on the issue of contention, an examination of conscious to ensure the rejection is not for one’s own personal moral comfort, and finally, a consideration of whether the disagreement is really with the teaching or if it is simply a rejection of the teaching office of the Church. If rejection of the authoritative doctrine is still an issue when these criteria are met, the rejection is not viewed as a blatant disobedience of the Church and therefore separation from the Church community is not demanded.
(The last type of belief in the Catholic Tradition, unimportant to this discussion, is provisional applications of Church doctrine, Church discipline, and prudential admonitions. These beliefs vary from believer to believer, parish to parish, and country to country. These teachings include application of religious belief into other areas such as science or economics. ‘The believer obeys (in the spirit of) any church law or disciplinary action which does not lead to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of that law or action.' An example of this is a parish priest’s implementation of a certain program to help the poor. One is free to disagree with that program while still having a clear and intact conscience.)
Obedience is intended in the Catholic Church, not as a childish way to avoid thought and examination of why rules exist, rather as a collaboration with the historical Church not devoid of examination and critique (for throughout history we can plainly see mistakes in the Church’s views). The consensus of the local churches is mainly assumed, however, to be very similar due to the belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church at large.
I have thought about homosexuality and its place in the world for a long time now. I have gay cousins and friends, though I assure you my emotional attachment to a person has never led me to softening what I believe. I simply cannot reasonably believe that a natural phenomenon like being gay would lead one down what is pronounced by the Church to be such a sinful path. Although original sin is present in all of our lives and some of us have greater vices than others, the choice of who we love is not something that nature would corrupt (for lack of a better word) unless God willed it. I believe the qualifications of my disagreement with the Church have been met on this issue: It is not an inordinate disagreement with the office of the Church that led to this; the Church's heirarchy and authority are what keep me coming back; It isn't for my moral comfort since I am not gay and I have no problems knowing some friends might end up in hell (but not the gays); and finally, I have researched the biological, sociological, and many other roots of homosexuality, and I think the Church has some catching up to do. If not, I will simply live in sinful disagreement and meet the priest halfway in the confessional…
(Of course I do not think gays should be married within the Church, but we all know that the priesthood was the refuge for good Catholic gays in the past. So saying a gay can't be a priest is something entirely different… My thoughts are simply that being gay is in itself no more sinful than being straight. We are all called to virtues like chastity, no matter our orientation…)
I simply do not see the pro-life argument as being played out in the same way as the gay issue. There is not biological data in support of the fact that poor women need abortions. It is purely an issue of free will, though many may disagree that being gay is not…
I will address Church & State in a few hours, it is breakfast time…
As I reread your posts after I think about it a bit, We do not disagree anywhere with substantial certainty. It is obviously more difficult to express ideas in writing instead of discussion, because I have stressed certain tones in my response that do not necessarily reflect what I feel. I tend to write in caricatures, since it elicits more response. ANYWAY…
I agree in a way with your separation of Church & State arg. I think our moralities should influence where this great nation should go. In my philosophical musings, I am one who holds that the Catholic Church and Christianity at large are nearly wholly responsible for the modern moral code and ethics of almost every realm. Although one might say that this country was founded on Christian values, to say so is not to say much, since western civilization as a whole was heavily influenced, if not created by, the Church. There is no separating the Church's influence on morality in the western hemisphere from what could have been without it. So in that sense, you are right, morality from a Christian foundation can and should (and probably must!) dictate policy decisions of the judicial and executive branches of government. This is a given, since morality is a realm the Church far exceeds any other worldly institution on…
HOWEVER! Lawmaking in this country, and the function of our bicameral legislature should never reflect one religion's wishes, especially when that legislation might further one religion's agenda without taking into account the wishes of the others. What makes this country great is the diversity that created and sustains it. It would be a shame for it to become some arm of a sect that banishes or condemns others. I do not want a senator or state rep in office who wishes to force a purely Christian agenda. A moral agenda is one thing. A strictly Christian agenda is different, and has no place in government…
When I say separation of Church and State, I mean what I think you also mean – no preferential treatment of any religion such that others may flourish. As far as legal definitions go, I am learning that what entails a religion might be the hardest question to answer. But that is a topic of another discussion…
Thanks for the challenge Daniel. I always enjoy discussion, even if we disagree or only seemingly disagree only to find we agree in full. I think I handled it sufficiently, but if there are any grey areas, be sure to let me know!
-kj-
A second response from Dad…:
Not to worry …I'll talk EVEN if I have been up all night…not as verbose but that's you not me.
I am disappointed you refuse to have a discerning opinion published on your site. Humm. Not surprising. But it speaks volumes.
I;m glad my comments are what you expected – that IS important – because I STILL cannot begin to guess what you might say about politics because you are all over the page from criticizing the gop for their sins (GOD forbid) like a new born-again, to sounding like you love obamaniac, to negative vitriol against numerous old time Republicans, and on,and on.
–
If this is "hijacked"…
Well, count me in because I'm lovin it.
–
You are the one with the blinders on…well you and the media. "Evangels,,, Of course we don't know any because its obvious they are an insignificant minority that "hijacked the party", ha, ha the joke is on you and the rest of the media that is obviously SO scared of them – or at least that's the message they have sold to YOU and many other wanna be liberals and liberals alike.
–
continued logically below…
Yours is of course a knee-jerk reaction. Just as I expected. So visceral and predictable…
…continued:
You are in denial of a clear and obvious fact: the party has been hijacked. Sure, your friends do not classify and maybe you don't even know any evangelicals, but your experience has led to a confirmation bias that is not typical of the reality of the situation. Look up the phrase confirmation bias. Simply because you do not know anyone who takes Genisis literally certainly does not mean they do not exist. I don't know any movie stars. That doesn't mean that they are some kind of leftist propaganda creation. How do you explain the rise in homophobic speech? "homophobic speech"… Huh Bruno…watch the movie and ask again . What do you have to say for dispositional premillenialism, or do you need a refresher course on Baptist theology? No, who cares besides you… you think dispo- blah premi- blah whatever it is is even worth me trying to pronounce – oh! this is terrible! Huh? What have you been drinking??? Is this a plague like
swine flu sweeping the nation? NO! WHO CARES… its insignificant.
What explains the modern trend of atheist uprising? Why is the media so anti-conservative now? They elected their CHOSEN ONE and they hate Christianity/Judaism what do you expect them to say?? Why do so many senators openly express disdain for evolution, – I already told you If you don't believe in CREATION you do not believe in GOD. gays, – you seem overly focused on this too who cares – I'd say its a non-issue to them – not the horrific scourge you are portraying them as and other scientific realms – huh, are you talking their disdain for stem cell research or euthanasia?. Why are we so vigorously concerned with Israel? What motives do we have for being involved there? Because in case you haven;t noticed they are surrounded by millions that want them exterminated – eliminated, wiped off the planet. What motives do we have for being involved there? There is no oil, and as the Darfur situation has shown, we sure do not get involved in foreign affairs to protect human life. We are not the worlds policeman and don't have the resources to be. Why hasn't Obamniack stepped into Africa's affairs ie. Darfur- hummm? Why are you, a former biologist, siding with science deniers? For sure, there are things out there that cannot be explained with science or evolution -I know you disagree and say EVERYTHING will eventually be explained via science but I do not have that much FAITH in science.Why are you, a person of rational thought, siding with politicians, kings of liars? For me the Republican liers are better and have more policies aligned with mine just like every other intelligent human would say. There is no conspiracy brewing against the Republicans; they are sabotaging themselves with issues that should not even be on the table. They are on your table maybe for me its on the floor and who cares.
…recontinued:
You didn't even read the issues as presented. You also, again, as always, fall victim to affirmation of the disjunct, a propositional fallacy. Simply because I say the Republican Party is a shit show, you assume that I would say the Democratic Party is succeeding. In fact, when I said one is weak, it does not entail that the other is not also corrupt or similarly failing. It simply means what I said, that the one is weak. So stop with the 'YOU LOVE DEMOCRATS' accusation. And that fallacy is always in addition to the appeal to ridicule you use in almost every argument you make. Look those up. Actually, screw that, here is a list you should study before you present your next argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies So, if I was a person off the street who read you vitriol rage against the gop you are saying I would conclude that you are a
conservative… yep that's just simple logic, of course! Mr.List of fallacies!
I can't believe you think Obama is so different than any other president we have ever had. I used to think it really doesn't matter that much who is in office but now I will be the first to say that I was wrong. This guy is SO far out in left field it is scary. Just as I thought a year ago. As far as a puppet of corporate America actually you have that 180* wrong. Corporate America HATES him because he is anti big business – a socialist- he wants the govt to run EVERYTHING large and small in their life as well as yours. What has the govt done a good job at social security, the military, infrastructure? The guy is a puppet of corporate America, and since you love big business, he is shoving it down our throats.- the media, yes – corporate no- The government and the federal reserve are just big businesses that are screwing us in a different way then they were before. You of all people should see that Bush's Administration simply bled us in a different way by letting businesses get big in the public sector. Yes, but bled us lite – now its profuse government takeover and spend. Obama is simply centralizing where the businesses' power lies – in the hands of the feds. No that is fascism – the govt cannot be allowed to run everything. There is just as much big business as there was before, it is simply now glaring us in the eye in the form of big brother government.
You fail politics 101. The only party in this country is the business party.
Sorry, you have been schooled! Don't post this on your site eather.