My take on the ‘Religious Freedom’ law in Indiana

I’m gonna use a bakery owner as an example:

Refusing to bake a damn cake for someone due to their sexual orientation is stupid… Aren’t you a businessperson? Don’t you want to make a damn profit?  You don’t agree with homosexuality?  Well, that is your own thought and you are entitled to it, but keep it to yourself.  You’re a twice divorced baker? If that is the case, on the same accord you should be refusing service to yourself… What do you think about that? Bake the damn cake… It doesn’t affect you in any negative way. You may be a bigot, but you’re making money.

Advertisements

Are You Being Persecuted This Christmas? Here’s A Helpful Chart

image

It’s that time again.

Last week, Fox News host Bill O’Reillylaunched his annual offensive against the alleged “War On Christmas.”

For some conservative Christians like O’Reilly, changing “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays” is a sign that it is somehow becoming harder for Christians to practice their faith openly in America.

In response, Christian blogger Rachel Held Evans boiled down the controversy into a simple flow chart.

Are You Being Persecuted This Christmas? Here’s A Helpful Chart

Carol Kuruvilla  The Huffington Post 12/08/14 02:07 PM ET

It’s that time again.

Last week, Fox News host Bill O’Reillylaunched his annual offensive against the alleged “War On Christmas.”

For some conservative Christians like O’Reilly, changing “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays” is a sign that it is somehow becoming harder for Christians to practice their faith openly in America.

In response, Christian blogger Rachel Held Evans boiled down the controversy into a simple flow chart.

There is real religious persecution happening in the world every day —houses of worship are being destroyedpeople face job discrimination at work, and some are even killed because of their religion.

Evans claims being wished “happy holidays” by a stranger doesn’t amount to persecution because there is no way that God can be kept out of Christmas.

The whole story of Advent is the story of how God can’t be kept out. God is present. God is with us. God shows up—not with a parade but with the whimper of a baby, not among the powerful but among the marginalized, not to the demanding but to the humble. From Advent to Easter, the story of Jesus should teach us that God doesn’t need a mention in our pledge or on our money or over the loudspeaker at the mall to be present, and when we fight like spoiled children to “keep” God in those things, we are fighting for idols. We’re chasing wind.

According to the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of Americans said they wanted stores to greet customers with “Merry Christmas,” while 46 percent said it doesn’t matter. About 12 percent preferred “Happy Holidays.”

Huffington Post’s Executive Editor Rev. Paul Raushenbush suggested that the rise of “Happy Holidays” reflects a willingness to embrace America’s increasing diversity.

For a long, long time Christianity was dominant in the United States and represented the civic religion of the country. But America is about the people who are here now, and that is a much more diverse group. And that’s good! It is time to stop insisting that everything revolves around us. Instead, let’s join the wider circle of the many traditions that make up our country. Besides, any Christian knows that Christmas is not about displays in shopping malls, or capitols, or schools, it is about a spiritual event that we honor most in our families and our homes.

Did Jesus Really Condemn Same-Sex Marriage?

It is a claim I’ve run into often in church debates. Earnest opponents of marriage equality stand up and declare, “Jesus condemns same-sex marriage in Matthew 19, and so as a committed Christian I couldn’t possibly support it.”

I am all for Christians following the Bible, but in this particular case, peoples’ good intentions are leading them astray. The claim that Jesus condemns same-sex marriage is a false one.

Matthew 19 in fact records an occasion when Jesus references the Bible story about God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Quoting Genesis, Jesus says,

Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Mat. 19:4-6, New Revised Standard Translation)

Opponents of marriage equality claim that Jesus here confers his own stamp of approval on marriage between a man and a woman, and in so doing rules out the possibility of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships among his followers.

There are multiple problems with this claim.

In the first place, the claim is based on a logical fallacy. Jesus without question speaks approvingly of heterosexual marriage. But does that mean he automatically condemns same-sex relationships? If I go to a restaurant with a group of friends and speak approvingly of the Bavarian triple-chocolate layer cake, does that mean I automatically condemn anyone who orders the cherry cheesecake for dessert instead? Of course it doesn’t!

It makes no sense to say that because Jesus approves of heterosexual marriage, he necessarily condemns alternative patterns of life. If that logic were true, we would also have to say that Jesus condemns people who choose to remain single, which is yet another alternative to heterosexual marriage. But in that case Jesus would be condemning himself, because Jesus chose to remain unmarried!

The problems with the anti-equality interpretation of this passage don’t end there. If we read the passage in context, we discover that Jesus isn’t discussing sexual orientation here at all; he is talking about divorce. The whole point of his Genesis quote is that God wants married people to stay together: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It is highly ironic that people use this passage to condemn same-sex marriage, because in doing so they completely ignore the strict teaching against divorce which the passage does contain, and instead read into it a condemnation of same-sex marriage that it does not contain.

This hesitancy to embrace the actual message of the passage is understandable. Jesus’ uncompromising teaching about divorce here can be a bit alarming. A false interpretation that condemns people who are different from me is much more comfortable than an accurate interpretation that might call my own life into question!

If we take the time to read further in the passage’s context, however, we discover we are not alone in our discomfort with Jesus’ teaching about divorce. Jesus’ own disciples found the teaching disturbing, too. Hearing him speak, they responded that getting married wouldn’t be worth the risk if divorce resulted in our automatic alienation from God (v. 10). Jesus responds by softening the application of his teaching. He says, “Not everyone can accept this teaching… Let anyone accept this who can” (vv. 11, 12).

This combination of a strict teaching and a softened application actually makes good sense. No loving parent wants to see a beloved child go through the pain of a divorce. I have been part of the wedding celebrations for my two daughters, and I fervently hope and pray that their marriages will be happy, fulfilling and lasting. This is the strict part of my own feelings about divorce — I care about my children deeply, and this means I absolutely despise the thought that they would have to go through a divorce one day. But if disaster were to strike and one of their marriages should fail, that same deep caring means I would continue to love and support my children. The “application” of my fervent desire that they not have to experience a divorce is softened by my love for them, which continues through good times and bad. So it is with God’s love for us.

But this combination of a strict teaching and a softened application disappears from the Matthew 19 passage entirely when people use it to condemn same-sex relationships. The anti-equality interpretation falsely portrays Jesus as condemning same-sex marriage strictly and without qualification. The softening effects of divine love vanish from the scene.

In sum, the claim that Jesus condemns same-sex marriage in Matthew 19 fails on at least three counts:

• It depends on a logical fallacy

• It ignores the actual subject of Jesus’ teaching in favor of a foreign agenda.

• It contradicts Jesus’ own direction on how his teaching should be applied.

This damaging and misguided interpretation vividly illustrates of how our understanding of Scripture can go astray when we read biblical fragments out of context and without any reference to the Bible’s overall message of God’s love.

Unfortunately such errors of interpretation are more than a mere academic problem; they are doing positive harm in the lives of a great many people. It is time for committed Christians to set aside the errors and misinterpretations that lead LGBT people to feel like second-class citizens in the household of God. In my recent book I show how a faithful and responsible reading of the Bible’s message reveals God’s fervent desire to bless everyone’s marriages, both gay and straight alike.

Show your right-wing friends this post… They need to see it.

When you’re like me, and I’m assuming there are quite a few, sometimes you hit a point where you can no longer sugarcoat your political arguments.  As you hear the same asinine statements constantly repeated, you just hit a point where you want to stand up and say, “Look you babbling buffoon, let me spell it out for you very simply.”

Now, most times we can’t do this because the person who we’re debating is a friend or relative and we don’t want to be overly rude. Well, I’ve decided to do it for you.

Here are a few of my simplified responses to the ignorance by many on some key topics being debated in our country (and probably others as well):

Gun Rights: I love when I see Republicans showing off some image of a group of “good ol’ boys” holding shotguns and hunting rifles with some caption like “Want to take our guns? Good luck!”  That or someone holding a handgun with a caption along the lines of “Liberals, come and take this!”

Attention all Fox News Sheeple:

Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away.  He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has supported).

So, when you share these pictures, acting as if you’re “getting at liberal ignorance,” all you’re really doing is spreading an image around the internet that showcases how you–and any other Republican who sees it and thinks “EXACTLY!”–don’t know a damn thing about which you’re speaking.

We’re Out to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage: Unless you want to make divorce illegal, don’t tell me about same-sex marriage “ruining the sanctity of marriage.”

Divorce did that long ago.

Same-sex Marriage overall: Honestly, I’m exhausted with the same-sex marriage “debate.” 

There is no debate.

Procreation is not a requirement for the right to marry, nor are those who procreate required to get married.

“Homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion.

The term “traditional marriage” is defined from religious text.

Our country does not establish laws based on religion. T Continue reading