Dangerous Bible Thumpers

Maybe, I’m in denial, but generally speaking, I don’t think I often characterize devout Christians as “dangerous,” although it truly fits in this case.  I heard this story first on MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, although the linked article names ABC as breaking the story.  Here it is in a nutshell. Some US manufacturer of sights that go on rifles has been inscribing the sights with specifically Christian Bible passages. This is at odds with the Military’s rules and guidelines, but the manufacturer really doesn’t care. To that company prostelizing Jesus is more important than anything else. This has been going on for a while too, but only recently has a watchdog group brought this to light.

Our real enemies in the world tend to be ultra religious crazies willing to blow themselves up over what they believe is a holy war of US Christians trying to kill their religion. Our government doesn’t see it that way. To us, we are trying to make ourselves safe from these extremists. So what is a little Bible verse have to do with that? What it does is give the message that this really is a religious battle of Christians trying to kill them. All that can do is add fuel to the fire, and make the crazies feel justified in their craziness. And who loses? Our soldiers and their loved ones.

The linked story is from a far right web site, and I chose it specifically so that you can read the comments left by these far right Christians. Truly insane.

Now, not all Christians feel this way (Thank Heavens) but we have to start to name things as they are. We all have to wake up and recognize that while faith can be a powerful tool of much help to many, religious zealotry isn’t good for anyone.

Christianity has failed when it makes us into the exact enemy that other religious zealots are claiming that we are. Where are the real Christians to save Faith from the destruction being caused by the fringe?

CNSNews.com – Group That Alerted Media to Biblical Markings on Rifle Sights Wants Congress to Investigate ‘Military Religious Extremism’.

A Holiday Message

My friend, Wolf Martinez, posted this to Facebook, and I thought it was a wonderful sentiment for this holiday season:

“The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness with the universe and all its Gifts, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us.”

– Black Elk (1863-1950)

God’s Last Gasps for Air

The premise of this post has been on my mind for some time, as I have thinking about how to frame the ideas I’m about to set out there for all to read. A number of different ideas have resided in my mind, but none have appeared to offer the desired frame. Even this one may seem a stretch, but I’d rather start my dialogue on it, than continue the inner discussion within my mind. A letter to the editor and book review are linked below, that I believe spell out “the case” superbly. So, I wish to label them as exhibit A, B, and C, and request you read them before continuing. Since you may not, these excerpts may help set the stage:

Exhibit A, Book Review by Nicolas Wade:

Dawkins invites the reader to share the frustration of an imaginary history teacher, some of whose students refuse to accept that the Roman Empire ever existed, or that Latin is the mother tongue from which the Romance languages evolved. Instead of concentrating on how Western culture emerged from the institutions of the Roman state, the teacher must spend time combating a school board that insists he give equal time to their alternative view that French has been spoken from time immemorial and that Caesar never came or saw or conquered. This is exactly analogous to the plight of the biology teacher trying to acquaint students with the richness of modern biology in states where fundamentalist opponents of evolution hold sway.

From exhibit B, letter by Daniel Dennett:

What is going on at The New York Times? Why is it so bizarrely respectful of those who doubt evolution? In recent years The Times has published three preposterous Op-Ed articles by evolution-doubters (Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Michael J. Behe and Senator Sam Brownback). These no more deserved space in The Times than the opinions of flat-earthers or trance- channelers. In the wake of Judge John E. Jones III’s decision in the Dover, Pa., case that intelligent design is a religious viewpoint that may not be taught in public schools, one would think The Times would finally recognize that the intelligent design campaign is a hoax and dishonest to the core, and stop giving it respectability in its pages.

from Exhibit C, Letter by Alex Rosenberg:

Evolution is a fact, natural selection is a process and Darwin’s theory is that the fact is explained by the process. The facts of evolution are as evident as any facts about the past can be. So is the fact that blind variation and natural selection can produce a lot of adaptational change. Darwin’s theory about how it does so is indeed a work in progress, but one whose basic correctness is no more open to doubt that General Relativity. In “The Greatest Show on Earth,” and in a couple of other books, including “The Ancestor’s Tale” and “The Blind Watchmaker,” Dawkins has shown us how this process, which is entirely free from purpose, goal, intention or design, results in the overwhelming appearance of all four. Processes, of course, are facts. No twist in Dawkins’s knickers.

from Exhibit C, Letter by Eric Delson:

In his otherwise excellent review, Nicholas Wade draws a distinction among theory, law and fact in science. He notes that Dawkins, in reaction to “creationists, who like to dismiss evolution as ‘just a theory,’ ” insists that evolution is a fact. Wade correctly recognizes that in science a theory is more than a supposition, as does Dawkins, but while criticizing Dawkins for calling evolution a fact, Wade falls back on using the term “theory,” which surely connotes uncertainty to the nonscientist. Both authors ignore the third option, to refer to evolution as a “law” in the same sense that most people speak of the “law of gravity.”

Yes, this may appear to be simply all about evolution and creationism, but my purposes are different, so bear with me. This debate about evolution, is simply an illustration of the line drawn in the sand. And, if I’m honest from the start, my premise and ideas have nothing to do with God, except I thought the title sounded catchy. God is not gasping for air, or dying, or fading from relevancy. However, I believe it true to say that those humans who refuse to accept Science and the fact of Evolution are afraid that this is the case. To them, Science is an attempt to kill God. Their insistence to hold so tightly to a disproved myth, and develop ideas like Intelligent Design, at all costs, suggests that without it, they have no ability to believe in God.

How else can you explain the construction of a Museum of Creationism, where robotronic dinosaurs frolic with humans, in a way that scientifically could never exist, but must be constructed and sold as undeniably true so that the myth of the great flood can be aligned with scientific fact? Why else work so hard to hold the Bible as ultimate history, except that without it, they are afraid that God will cease to exist, or more accurately, never had existed in the first place. Personally, I don’t think the existence of God is up for grabs, and any discussion of it, is a red herring, designed to shift focus away from the bigger question: what is the validity of Religion, or more specifically- what is the validity of seeing a Judeo-Christian perspective as the only accurate and true expression of Religion. The Christian religion (lower-case “r”) is what is at stake of being disproved.

My intentional splitting of Christianity from the whole Judeo-Christian branch of history should not be minimized. Philosophers and theologians within the Hebrew tradition have, since the dawn of their faith tradition and ancestral beginnings, seen the value of interpretation. Volumes upon volumes exist as different individuals have chosen to explore sometimes subtle, and sometimes drastic explanations for scripture, practice, and belief. It has only been the comparatively recent Christians who seek to mold an understanding of fact into something that might fit within their locked-down scriptural words. In other words, only the Christian Church works so to declare the fact of the Holy Bible as more important and above all other fact, and even above the importance of Faith.

So, what the heck does this have to do with anything Queer, or Gay, or whatever words you choose? Can you believe I just wrote 1000 words as a set up to what I really want to say? Yes, I guess I did.

Virtually all of the backlash and opposition to full equality for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenders, is rooted in a religious objection to homosexuality. While Christianity isn’t the only faith tradition to oppose homosexuality, it does hold a singular spot as the predominant religion of the advanced Western Culture. The attack on homosexuality from the Christian extremists is completely an effort to support their fallacy of the Holy Bible as Fact, and plays the same role in the perpetuation of this fallacious fact, as the attack on evolution. While in practical terms, the opposition to full equality for LGBT’s is the oppression of actual people, the goal of any of the Christian Far Right isn’t to harm people, but rather to defend their stronghold on the Fact of the Holy Bible, and thus, their own sole connection to God. This is partly how these Christians can claim to love the sinner but hate the sin, because to them, it isn’t about real people, but about actions and behaviors. They don’t set out to cause harm, even if for them, the ends justify the means. Not all Christians operate that way. Even some denominations articulate that Faith and Experience play key roles in understanding God’s plan. But in moments of fear, even the most moderate Christians can fall into the trap of the Bible as Fact.

The issues of the Fact of Evolution and the Fact of Homosexuality are both, at the core, issues of biology and science. The war raging between the Christian extremists and Science concerning evolution has been going on for some time, so it is easier to see and analyze a history for that struggle. It follows other similar battles with Science such as the struggle of the Church to condemn Galileo because his astrologic observations did not match their literal Biblical reading. The Battle against the science of homosexuality is relatively new. Previously the Church used only a moral argument against homosexuality, but in reality, it didn’t care if homosexuality was going on, as long as it was secret and hidden. However, as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people have become more visible, and want the rights that everyone else has, as out visible and happy people, this acceptance of secrets no longer functions, and the Church has lost most if not all of it’s moral authority.

So, The Christian extremists have nowhere else to turn except to their Holy Bible as fact.

The Holy Bible’s Last Gasps for Air

Therefore, the battle against Homosexuality is really the battle to save the authority of the Holy Bible. If they give in on this one, they have nothing left that they can see to justify the need for their religion. The rest of the things that they could possibly grab hold of as justification for Christianity have long since passed away. Greed and Coveting rule- look at how the Banking industry or the Health Care industry work to shore up their profits over the well being of our society as a whole. Gambling is everywhere; Divorce is prevalent; Lying almost the default behavior. The Golden Rule is tarnished and appears to look more like plastic that a precious gem.

Unlike the fact of evolution, the Science of Homosexuality isn’t as well understood. Not yet. Still so much that we don’t understand about genes, and proteins and hormones, and all of the various things that play into the biology of it. And we understand far more of the Biology, than we do of the sociology of Homosexuality- how culture and environment affect the Biology as well. In time these too will be well understood. But for now, we must accept that there is still much that we do not yet know as fact in the same way as we know about the fact of evolution.  This isn’t really any different than the process by which the fact of Astronomy and the solar system came about. It just takes time.

If I am right however, that this is the last big stand that the Far Right Christians have to support their Holy Bible as fact, then, the fact of homosexuality is likely to be even more dismissed than the fact of evolution. This last attack on the fallacy will be fought with greater blindness and zeal. So we have a real battle to look forward to.

Letters – The Fact of Evolution – NYTimes.com.

Experience God

One of the people I follow on Twitter is Deepak Chopra, and this morning I found this:

@Deepak_Chopra Our experience of God evolves as we evolve.

This is so true. It isn’t that God evolves, God may not. God may be exactly the same today as 10,000 years ago, but what changes is our experience of God, and thus our understanding of God. In fact for us to have a healthy relationship with God, with ourselves and with others, our experience of God must evolve. Otherwise we stay stuck, and immobilized.

Creation, but it’s very nature is a dynamic process of destruction and construction. When we attempt to force God, and our experience of God to be the same, we fail to acknowledge the greatest aspect of God, which is creation. God isn’t stifled, creation continues, but we loose sync with it, we become ignorant of it. It is like being in a beautiful flower garden. We may know that there are beautiful flowers all around us, but we refuse to inhale and experience their fragrance, so we miss experiencing the fullness of our experience of God.

The greatest example of a failure for our collective experience of God, is the forced adherence by some, to a purely Biblical experience of God. The Bible describes the experience of God by others in another time, space and set of circumstances. Not only does this fail to acknowledge our own experience of God, either collectively or individually, but it refuses to accept or acknowledge the reality of creation that is being human. It reduces God to a concrete set of attributes, expressions, behaviors and meanings- the exact opposite of creation.

Texas Church Sponsors Pro-Gay Christian Billboards

Saw this on Twitter and had to write about it! Thanks to @QueerJohnPA and @lgbtlife for posting.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

Please read the article linked, I’m not going to show any quotes from it, but it is a good read. I’m more interested to share my own reactions to these billboards.

First, I’d like to say that they are really gutzy, and I really give them credit for putting themselves out there like that. The message- that Jesus and the Bible is more welcoming and inclusive than some think it is- is a valuable message to share. But if their goal is to get people, especially Christian believers to rethink their negative judgements of gays and lesbians, I’m not sure how successful this is going to be.

If I have any real beef about the project, is the way it uses scripture. Consider Matthew 19: 10-12, (displayed here from the NIV)

10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Now, this is a very interesting passage, especially following the earlier passages of Matthew 19, but how can anyone interpret it to say that “Jesus said some are born Gay.” Jesus didn’t say that unless the Greek for Eunuch(????????) is exactly the same as Greek for Gay (????????????), which it isn’t. And frankly as a gay man, I’m not sure how I feel about being called a Eunuch.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14 (NIV)

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

14 At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her.

There is a wonderfully beautiful story to be told about the love between these two women, although I’m hard pressed to say that they became one flesh. Here’s the same problem as the Matthew example. By trying to distill it down to a few passages, and then claim this is what it means, can’t possible provide any real teaching. It can only set the stage for a dispute about does it mean this or not. The tactic of pulling individual verses and claiming to know exactly what it means, that is the problem, not the solution to the problem.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

The last billboard is probably the saddest example, for this is truly a rich and meaningful story.

Matthew 8:5-13 (NIV)

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6″Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”

7Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

8The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

How they get from “a centurion and a servant” to “a gay couple” is truly remarkable, if not deplorable. If you go to the web site there is a full explanation of each passage.

The reality is that there may have been men who loved men and women who loved women in that time and place, but our contemporary understanding of Gay simply does not apply. There were no gay couples, where a couple is understood as an equal partnering of 2 men or two women.

Faith and tradition are things that many will defend and protect even beyond reason. To mess around with someone’s understanding, especially when they feel pretty sure they know what it means, is to invite a defensiveness and promote an unwillingness to be open to other interpretations. To place contemporary constructs (ex: born gay, gay couple) into a biblical era is just as bad as those who go the other way.

Thoughts on God and Sex-Changes

I decided to post this here on Queer Look at the Bible because of the potentially theologic implications and scriptural basis of the underlying argument.

First, I’d encourage anyone to read both Earl’s post, and then all of the comments, for this is a really rich discussion. and then, after reading that, read through my comments. and then lastly, post a reply here or on Earl’s blog or both.

It is easy to think of Christian Thought as an oxymoron when you read any number of far right religious blogs, and then I find something like Earl’s blog and I fall in love, all over again with Religion, Theology, and all that comes with it. I think one of the reasons I have struggled getting my podcast going again is that I have lost some of the passion and curiosity that first stole my heart as I dug into religious issues, images and meaning more than a dozen years ago. So, to me this is such a gift for me!

Earl tears apart a basic religious justification against transgenders and the process of sex-changes, and succintly articulates a number of the issues involved in sorting this through. As he put it:

After all, if God has specifically and omnipotently designed each person then changing one’s divinely-designated gender may be understood as, ultimately, one’s dissatisfaction with God.

While some of his commenters don’t like his use of the idea of birth defects to illustrate his reasoning, it made perfect sense to me. He writes:

If birth defects exist as a part of nature, why then is gender a non-negotiable?

In other words, those who claim that each person is created exactly as God intended, and therefore, no alteration should be needed- that argument falls apart when you think of birth defects. Birth defects are natural occurring as part of nature.

I’m with Earl, but there is a scriptural basis for the non-negotiation of gender. Genesis:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

A strict adherence to scripture suggests that everyone falls into one of these 2 categories, even though we know that there are individuals born with both male and female sex organs, as well as individuals whose bodies are clearly one or the other, but for whom their sense of their gender does not align with their body. Frankly, I’ve always been suspicious of this passage where it says: “…man in our image, in our likenes” I never understood where the “our” came from.

Aside from that, however, this issue revolves on the purpose and connection of gender, and sex. What we are learning about these from Science suggests they are more complex than once thought.

One of the things this brings up for me, is the connection between exploring what it means for God to be the creator who creates in God’s own image, and what it means for us as human beings, to understand God based upon how we see ourselves.

The Wanderings of a Theological Vagabond » Blog Archive » Thoughts on God and Sex-Changes .

Resources:

Straight Guys Guide to Gender Identity

Toledo Bishop Bans Dissident ‘New Ways Ministry’ to Gays – Catholic Online

The link below is to www.catholic.org, so expect the tone of the article to be anti-gay, but it is a good read nonetheless. The article describes how the Bishop Blair forced a pro-gay catholic group, New Way Ministries from using a local convent for a workshop. The group has been cited for failing to provide the full catholic teachig on homosexuality which includes ”the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination.”

I’m posting it here, because I am struck by the faith and tenacity of the groups director, Francis DeBernardo. Bernardo has promised that his pro-homosexual workshop will take place in Toledo, saying “We might not be able to use a Catholic facility, but we’ll reach Catholic people.”

It is often easy for GLBTQ christians to just walk away from the church. For some, not so easy- they stay despite their opposition to the church’s teachings, and lead a double life, or may be in the closet to the church. Others leave and find a more accepting congregation like the MCC, but most just leave and lose their faith. I have much respect for those who work to change the Church, even in small ways- even when it seems unchangeable. In this, are lessons about true faith and conviction!

Toledo Bishop Bans Dissident ‘New Ways Ministry’ to Gays – Catholic Online.

How Religion Fails us- Covenant Marriage

This post may seem politicaly based, but I decided to post it here due to the religious motivations behind the law being discussed in this linked blog.

This is a story about something called Covenant Marriage, a type of legal marriage began as an attempt to stem divorce rates, begun in Lousiana, but now available in several states. My purpose in writing about it is to illustrate the ways in which conservatives apply a double standard when it suits them.

You can follow te link at the bottom to the full story. I have pulled out some stuff, and it is displayed as quoted text, and the rest are my comments/text.

The Definition of Marriage may not be re-defined!

The first line of attack towards same-sex marriage is that it would be redefining marriage, as if the definition of marriage has never been re-defined. Covenant Marriage is one example of a redefinition of marriage. While it remains a marriage between a man and a woman, it is still a different definition and type of marraige. If there can already be 2 types of marriage with 2 different sets of rules or qualities how would adding another destroy the definition of marriage?

The definition of marriage is biblical and may not be altered!

There are 2 sets of scripture often used to justify marriage as between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve as the original husband and wife (even though I’m not sure the Bible ever says they were married), and the words of Jesus. Jesus was actually talking abot divorce, and the passage ends with te idea that who God has joined no one may tear apart. Interestingly, even though the Bible says there can be no divorce, Covenant Marriage allows for divorce.

Ending a marriage is still possible, though no-fault divorce is eliminated, and grounds for divorce are limited. They include physical or sexual abuse (of either a spouse or child), infidelity, a felony conviction or abandonment.

Note, that sexual abuse is an acceptable reason for divorce, and yet rape is not an acceptable reason for abortion (according to some such as Governor Jindal of Louisiana). where conservatives draw the lines varies even where the Bibler does not. Why must the Bible be followed literally at times and at others it can be modified?

Don’t use the government to advance social change!

When legislation is advanced that gives GLBT people more rights, it is attacked as an attempt to force social change upon people- or blamed on activist judges. Covenant Marriage was developed by a professor at a law school and a congress person. The purpose? To advance a social agenda.

…an attempt to strengthen the family and protect children.

Critics called it a potentially dangerous injection of religious belief into a civil commitment…

The sky will fall!

Conservatives have a very hard time predicting the results. They are sure that if same-sex couples can marry, that all hell will break loose. They were also sure that Covenant Marriage would take off big time, and it has totally not happened. It hasn’t done what it set out to do, and has not been embraced by the american people, even in some of the most religious states.

Then-Rep. Tony Perkins, R-Baker, predicted, “I think in about a year a majority of couples will make it [covenancy] part of their marriage plans.” Today, nearly 12 years later, the total has edged closer to 2 percent. Nor has covenant marriage reduced general divorce rates. In 1997, when covenant marriage became law, 13,836 divorces were granted in Louisiana. In 2003 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), the divorce total was 15,230.

Gays want special rights!

“Louisiana has elected to confer special benefits on covenant marriages, such as a 10 percent cut in auto insurance rates,” wrote Pat Buchanan…

So it is OK to provide special benefits to some but not others. How hyocritical is that?

Being gay is a choice!

If gays can marry, then there will be no limits, anything goes!

According to our opponents, being gay is a choice and therefor, we do not deserve to be a protected class. But the truth is, choice makes a difference. Straight couples who chose Covenant Marriage, had a lower divorce rate. These are couples who actively chose to define their relationship as special and more than just being together.

Though covenant marriage has had little effect on divorce as a whole, those who opt for it do have lower divorce rates.

But so many of the gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage are already in a committed relationship. They are chosing to define their relationship as more than just being together.

For gay and lesbians don’t mean it! They are only doing it for the show!

…then-Gov. Mike Huckabee ­— who, though he was an ordained Baptist minister, did not “upgrade” his own marriage at the time. And Bush and his wife Laura chose not to upgrade their own. Later, Huckabee did in a very public way. Columnist Margaret Carlson saw the $65,000 spectacle as a political ploy: “If moral values helped President Bush win the White House, why not Gov. Huckabee?

Don’t force tour ways on the American people!

Though the 2008 Republican Party platform made no mention of covenant marriage, the Texas GOP platform called for it, along with the complete abolishment of no-fault divorce, as well as making it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple ­— this despite the fact that during the 2007 Texas legislative session, a proposed covenant marriage bill failed to clear the state house.

Covenant Marriage is an idea that some want to push on the American people, who have shown that it is not their choice. And even though it has been shown not to create the desired results, andhas not been embraced, even in religious states, conservatives don’t give up.

But Perkins says he has not given up. “When the Jindal administration gets through some of these challenging times,” he says, “I hope they’ll focus on some of these family laws.”

The Independent – I Don’t

H – E – double hockey sticks

The link below is about a really wonderful story from This American Life.

The Bible’s priorities, however, have been inverted by evangelicals, for whom Hell has become a central, essential doctrine.

I’m not sure how that happened. St. Paul had precisely nothing to say on the subject of Hell. He had a lot to say about death, resurrection and the kingdom, but not one word about Hell.

I can tell you why Paul has no mention of Hell.  For him it neither existe, nor was important. For Paul believed that the second coming would be in his lifetime.

You can probably find the TAL story- the original, but here is a blurb about it.

slacktivist: H – E – double hockey sticks.