Re: Stealth attack on evolution

I'll respond to just a couple of Burgy's points/questions, snipping the
rest.

B: I know little of Knippers, except that she appears to be trying to split
a church over what I consider to be a secondary issue. How she brings that
into the public square I just have no idea.

T: You may be right, I may have overstated her institution's role in trying
to shape public policy. As for splitting churches, Burgy, we probably
disagree about whether the ordination of sexually active homosexual persons
and/or extending the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples is important
enough to split a church. I would not join a church that does or advocates
either of those things. My own church background is mainline Presbyterian,
and of course lots of other denominations have struggled with this issue. I
don't consider it even remotely like ordaining women, although some
conservative Christians put that as a parallel issue for biblical reasons.
Knippers believes that many denominations have sought too much to follow the
culture rather than to stand against it prophetically--not just on this
issue, on many issues. I don't always agree with her, but I do agree with
that general attitude.

B: Let's focus on that one [amendment vs gay marriage]. Do you support it
only on religious grounds, or do you have secular arguments for it?

T: If my arguments were only religious, I still would not hesitate in this
case to bring them into the public square. It isn't about what people are
coerced to believe--and the govt must not coerce belief--it's about what
people are being officially recognized for doing, and I can't accept the
legimacy of what they're doing. Just as I can't accept the legitimacy of
state sanctioned euthenasia, or of state sponsored gambling (no, I don't
play the lottery or go to race tracks). Whether or not there are secular
arguments against those things, I still oppose the state sanctioning what I
consider immoral. The majority might not allow a minority to impose our
view on this issue, but that's what democracy is about; it mustn't be about
silencing religious dissent simply b/c it's religious.

However, I do have secular arguments for an amendment. The president has
(somewhat weakly) stated it already: it is wrong, just wrong, for courts to
impose gay marriage on a highly unwilling public. Now I recognize here a
disturbing parallel with the fact that historically courts imposed racial
equality on unwilling states, I grant you that, and this is one reason I
give priority to my religious argument, since there the parallel is not
applicable (the civil rights movement was mainly a religious movement, hence
the "Southern Christian Leadership Conference," etc.) If a court in state A
says that gay marriage is legal, when the legislature in that state might
reject it overwhelmingly, than what is to protect a very large majority from
having to recognize something they find profoundly immoral and unacceptable?
 Revolutions can be fought over such things, as Mr Jefferson knew full well,
with his comments about "exercising his sacred right to revolution."

I will read anything else you want to add on this, Burgy, but I have nothing
further to say. I doubt very much that this has been enlightening on my
end, I don't like to think too hard about politics since I find the public
conversation on so many issues so discouraging. Others have probably much
better things to say about it.

ted
Received on Fri Feb 11 01:40:45 2005