Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Here is the post where I offend several of my readers (WARNING: controversial subject matter follows)....
Ok, I mentioned in an earlier post that I was upset with the actions of someone I knew. I have waited awhile to cool off, but I haven't been able to completely drop the subject. So I will discuss the issues without naming names; I think that is the fairest way for me to vent. And I thank my friend Pete for her level-headed e-mail discussion on these topics that polarize our nation, our schools, our local governments and our churches.
Part of the reason I'm going to bring up what is usually unmentionable is that these issues are not going away quietly. In fact, they are the subjects of several ballot issues, and with Election Day less than a month away, various candidates for Congress, governor, etc. are discussing them, some of them quite stridently. I will not ask or expect my readers to agree with me, because I become offended when others do that to me. I am simply going to state what I feel and let you make up your own mind. I could ignore this altogether, which would be the way I generally deal with people face to face, but in this blog, I prefer to present myself as I am, warts and all. Otherwise, I have no outlet, and some of you will be left with a mistaken impression as to what I am really about.
First, even though I have mentioned this before, I feel I should state again that even though I am a Christian, I am a LIBERAL one. Extremely liberal, in fact. I am a former atheist, and many churches would not accept me as a member. The ones that would take me have what is known as an "open and affirming" covenant. That means they accept people from all backgrounds, and I mean ALL. Their only provision is if you wish to join, you must be willing to follow the teachings of Jesus. But anyone can visit. In a church such as this, you are allowed to ask difficult questions, learn about other faiths, decide what messages the Bible contains and how they apply to modern day. You are not threatened with eternal damnation for not conforming to the norm. This is an environment where I feel comfortable.
I believe in judging others as I want to be judged by my creator. I don't always succeed, but I am human after all. I have no problem discussing my beliefs with someone who wants to have a rational conversation about them, but I draw the line at attempting to convert someone who is already comfortable with their beliefs or condemning someone to Hell because they don't attend my church. I am far less concerned with whether someone is a Christian than whether they are loving, sincere, giving, respectful of others. Jesus allowed "undesirables" to dine with him. Why can't we do the same?
I feel rather strongly that Christianity should not become our form of government, but I see it happening all around me. I have no problem with being a Christian and having a secular government and secular public schools. I don't want to see the 10 Commandments posted on the front door of my state capitol building to the exclusion of other religious documents, and I feel that If parents are offended that the 10 Commandments are not posted in their public schools, then they can either enroll the child in a private Christian school or home school them. I do not object to comparative studies of world religions in the classroom, if such studies are unbiased and optional. But a Christian upbringing should be done at home, at the church of the parents' choice, and possibly at a private school if the parents want that. And to be perfectly honest, I would prefer that references to God be removed from our money and our courtrooms. What if the shoe were on the other foot and we were suddenly required to swear, "so help me Allah?" Ok, maybe that's a poor example, but I think it is clear what I'm getting at.
Right now, there are several attempts to legislate morality disguised as ballot issues that the voters will have to decide upon in a few weeks. One is a pretty much total ban on abortion in South Dakota. I always have and always will believe that abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor, and possibly her significant other when appropriate. No, I have never had an abortion, and I've never even been pregnant. But I could never endure laws that would tell some one who was raped, molested or who is too ill to carry a baby to term that they must go through with the pregnancy. And what about when the woman's life is in danger? How could I as a voter say, "sorry, but you'll have to die, because the law is the law"?
Some believe the proper pathway to encouraging a ban on abortion is to hold protests at Planned Parenthood or even at doctors' private homes. But I must voice an objection here. Because they aren't just intimidating women getting pregnancy counseling, they are also intimidating women who go there for other reasons. Like the woman with no health insurance who can't afford to pay full price on her annual PAP smear. Or the woman whose husband cheated on her and suddenly she needs an HIV or STD test. Or the woman who is trying to be a responsible adult and uses prescription birth control. Planned Parenthood provides many very valuable services for low income women (and some men). I was a patient of theirs for six years total when I had no insurance. I feel if you want to hold a public protest, go to your capitol or legislative building, or stage a parade or something. But stop humiliating individual women whom you know nothing about.
In Colorado, there are two items to vote upon regarding homosexuality. One is an amendment to the constitution stating that marriage can be only be between one man and one woman, pretty much the same thing that is being proposed federally. The other says nothing about marriage but guarantees some legal rights for same sex couples such as allowing hospital visitation (the ICU only allows family members), allowing a partner to make funeral arrangements for their loved one, and allowing one partner to inherit the property of another. It never made sense to me that someone could spend decades with their partner essentially as a loving spouse, yet be considered a complete stranger in the eyes of the law. So if I am still in Colorado come election day, I'll be voting against the constitution change and in favor of the legal rights for same sex partners. I figure if a couple lives as though they are married and are true to one another, what business of mine is it what gender they are? It is my opinion that same sex couples are NOT a threat to Christianity or the traditional family, and we do NOT need to be amending the Constitution to satisfy homophobic Christians. How can they be a threat? It's not as though a person can be made to "go gay" if they weren't born that way. The same sex partnerships I know are actually good examples of love and devotion, and what's wrong with that? I'd rather be around a happy gay couple than a miserable opposite sex couple any day.
A full 10 percent of the population is homosexual. They are born that way, so how can that be a sin? Our creator wouldn't make 10 percent of the population doomed to Hell from the moment they were born. That makes no sense whatsoever. I know of gay (now former) Catholics who tried their very best to choose the approved "lifestyle", marrying the opposite sex, raising a family, etc. They wanted with all their heart to live the dream. But while they loved their spouse and their children, they were inwardly tortured and miserable, living a lie because it was expected of them, and because they so desperately wanted to be "normal". Some were able to step forward and reveal the truth at some point, and some I believe are still closeted and will remain that way until the day they die.
There was more I wanted to say, but fibro fog has set in, and I'm too tired and in pain to continue in this vein much longer. I think I got the important stuff mentioned anyway. I just felt I should stand up and represent liberal Christians because I'm weary of the assumption that all Christians are of the fundamentalist type. You may call me whatever bad words you like, but I am hoping you will see me as a progressive because that's how I see myself.
I now return you to my less offensive blog entries.....
Part of the reason I'm going to bring up what is usually unmentionable is that these issues are not going away quietly. In fact, they are the subjects of several ballot issues, and with Election Day less than a month away, various candidates for Congress, governor, etc. are discussing them, some of them quite stridently. I will not ask or expect my readers to agree with me, because I become offended when others do that to me. I am simply going to state what I feel and let you make up your own mind. I could ignore this altogether, which would be the way I generally deal with people face to face, but in this blog, I prefer to present myself as I am, warts and all. Otherwise, I have no outlet, and some of you will be left with a mistaken impression as to what I am really about.
First, even though I have mentioned this before, I feel I should state again that even though I am a Christian, I am a LIBERAL one. Extremely liberal, in fact. I am a former atheist, and many churches would not accept me as a member. The ones that would take me have what is known as an "open and affirming" covenant. That means they accept people from all backgrounds, and I mean ALL. Their only provision is if you wish to join, you must be willing to follow the teachings of Jesus. But anyone can visit. In a church such as this, you are allowed to ask difficult questions, learn about other faiths, decide what messages the Bible contains and how they apply to modern day. You are not threatened with eternal damnation for not conforming to the norm. This is an environment where I feel comfortable.
I believe in judging others as I want to be judged by my creator. I don't always succeed, but I am human after all. I have no problem discussing my beliefs with someone who wants to have a rational conversation about them, but I draw the line at attempting to convert someone who is already comfortable with their beliefs or condemning someone to Hell because they don't attend my church. I am far less concerned with whether someone is a Christian than whether they are loving, sincere, giving, respectful of others. Jesus allowed "undesirables" to dine with him. Why can't we do the same?
I feel rather strongly that Christianity should not become our form of government, but I see it happening all around me. I have no problem with being a Christian and having a secular government and secular public schools. I don't want to see the 10 Commandments posted on the front door of my state capitol building to the exclusion of other religious documents, and I feel that If parents are offended that the 10 Commandments are not posted in their public schools, then they can either enroll the child in a private Christian school or home school them. I do not object to comparative studies of world religions in the classroom, if such studies are unbiased and optional. But a Christian upbringing should be done at home, at the church of the parents' choice, and possibly at a private school if the parents want that. And to be perfectly honest, I would prefer that references to God be removed from our money and our courtrooms. What if the shoe were on the other foot and we were suddenly required to swear, "so help me Allah?" Ok, maybe that's a poor example, but I think it is clear what I'm getting at.
Right now, there are several attempts to legislate morality disguised as ballot issues that the voters will have to decide upon in a few weeks. One is a pretty much total ban on abortion in South Dakota. I always have and always will believe that abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor, and possibly her significant other when appropriate. No, I have never had an abortion, and I've never even been pregnant. But I could never endure laws that would tell some one who was raped, molested or who is too ill to carry a baby to term that they must go through with the pregnancy. And what about when the woman's life is in danger? How could I as a voter say, "sorry, but you'll have to die, because the law is the law"?
Some believe the proper pathway to encouraging a ban on abortion is to hold protests at Planned Parenthood or even at doctors' private homes. But I must voice an objection here. Because they aren't just intimidating women getting pregnancy counseling, they are also intimidating women who go there for other reasons. Like the woman with no health insurance who can't afford to pay full price on her annual PAP smear. Or the woman whose husband cheated on her and suddenly she needs an HIV or STD test. Or the woman who is trying to be a responsible adult and uses prescription birth control. Planned Parenthood provides many very valuable services for low income women (and some men). I was a patient of theirs for six years total when I had no insurance. I feel if you want to hold a public protest, go to your capitol or legislative building, or stage a parade or something. But stop humiliating individual women whom you know nothing about.
In Colorado, there are two items to vote upon regarding homosexuality. One is an amendment to the constitution stating that marriage can be only be between one man and one woman, pretty much the same thing that is being proposed federally. The other says nothing about marriage but guarantees some legal rights for same sex couples such as allowing hospital visitation (the ICU only allows family members), allowing a partner to make funeral arrangements for their loved one, and allowing one partner to inherit the property of another. It never made sense to me that someone could spend decades with their partner essentially as a loving spouse, yet be considered a complete stranger in the eyes of the law. So if I am still in Colorado come election day, I'll be voting against the constitution change and in favor of the legal rights for same sex partners. I figure if a couple lives as though they are married and are true to one another, what business of mine is it what gender they are? It is my opinion that same sex couples are NOT a threat to Christianity or the traditional family, and we do NOT need to be amending the Constitution to satisfy homophobic Christians. How can they be a threat? It's not as though a person can be made to "go gay" if they weren't born that way. The same sex partnerships I know are actually good examples of love and devotion, and what's wrong with that? I'd rather be around a happy gay couple than a miserable opposite sex couple any day.
A full 10 percent of the population is homosexual. They are born that way, so how can that be a sin? Our creator wouldn't make 10 percent of the population doomed to Hell from the moment they were born. That makes no sense whatsoever. I know of gay (now former) Catholics who tried their very best to choose the approved "lifestyle", marrying the opposite sex, raising a family, etc. They wanted with all their heart to live the dream. But while they loved their spouse and their children, they were inwardly tortured and miserable, living a lie because it was expected of them, and because they so desperately wanted to be "normal". Some were able to step forward and reveal the truth at some point, and some I believe are still closeted and will remain that way until the day they die.
There was more I wanted to say, but fibro fog has set in, and I'm too tired and in pain to continue in this vein much longer. I think I got the important stuff mentioned anyway. I just felt I should stand up and represent liberal Christians because I'm weary of the assumption that all Christians are of the fundamentalist type. You may call me whatever bad words you like, but I am hoping you will see me as a progressive because that's how I see myself.
I now return you to my less offensive blog entries.....
Comments:
Post a Comment
