One of the favorite Christian hymns out there is “Be Not Afraid” …
Be not afraid.
I go before you always;
Come follow me,
and I will give you rest.
It, and its verses, are based mostly on phrases from Isaiah, with a bit of Matthew and Joshua thrown in. It’s a lovely tune I hear in various denominations, comforting and loving.
And yet, so much of the Vocal Right amongst Christianity seems driven by fear, and driven to spread that fear amongst the faithful. Unlike the angels that came to the shepherds, their message is one of panic and tidings of doom.
Take for example … CNSNews.com – Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn
Yes, you didn’t know it, but Judge Vaughn Walker declared Christianity illegal in California, and called for the creation of a Gay Police to hunt down Christians and send them off to internment camps. You won’t find that in the actual judgment, of course, but “Leaders” clearly have the Secret, Unredacted Version of the ruling.
(CNSNews.com) – Religious leaders warn that if an Aug. 6 ruling by a federal judge on same-sex marriage is upheld, it could wind up putting a gag on Christians speaking out about homosexuality – a gag that a top Southern Baptist leader says his denomination will not accept.
Yes, a federal judge has outlawed Freedom of Speech and of Religion. That’s pretty darned impressive.
In a 136-page decision barring California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
Yes? And this is untrue because …?
Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University Law School and chairman of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, said Walker’s finding is shocking, and, if upheld, would have ominous implications for Christians wanting to present the Bible’s position on homosexuality.
“It’s an astounding statement by a judge, and if that finding were to be upheld, it would criminalize Christian beliefs, because the Bible and Christian beliefs historically have clearly indicated that homosexuality is sex outside of marriage – and is contrary to God’s design,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
And that doesn’t harm gays? Especially when it then is used to deprive their relationships of legal recognition?
What if a Muslim imam declared that marriages not held in the name of Allah were not true marriages, and therefore all Christian marriages were fornication and unlawful? What if Muslim churches banded together to put forward a ballot measure to outlaw Christian marriages, claiming that Christians were banding together only to create and recruit new Christians from among children? Would that be harmful to Christians?
Sure it would. And I suspect Dean Staver would be asking a judge to block any such law, even if the imams were declaring that doing so would possibly “criminalize Islamic beliefs.”
He added: “For this judge to say that Christian beliefs or religious beliefs contrary to homosexuality are actually harmful — what that essentially says is, that if that’s the case, then you’ve got to change your religious beliefs, and if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized as result. That is a very dangerous aspect of this court decision.”
But that’s where Freedom of Religion comes in. It’s extraordinarily difficult for the government in this country to rein in religious expression of any sort. Even a hateful lunatic like Fred Phelps is able to send his brood out to preach his venomous faith. If the Phelpsies can’t be quashed, I’m really not worried about the Southern Baptists ability to continue to hold forth from the pulpit.
The judge based his finding on testimony of witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and on quotations from documents from the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
One Catholic document that the judge said “hurts” homosexuals, published by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” states: “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’”
Another document he cited — a resolution the Southern Baptist Convention passed in June of 2003 — says: “Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.”
Yeah, those sound pretty harmful. If I had folks preaching about my “serious depravity” and how I was a danger “to society at large,” and those sorts of beliefs were leading both to legislation and harassment, I think I’d consider myself harmed.
(The decision, btw, is here. This particular finding of fact is #77, found on page 103, l. 8 of the ruling.)
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge’s finding was disturbing, but predictable — his denomination had filed a “friend of the Court” to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.
“We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups ‘create an animus’ and were ‘the products of centuries of hate,’” Land said.
Note that neither “create an animus” nor “products of centuries of hate” are in Judge Walker’s ruling.
The biblical position on homosexuality isn’t “hate speech,” he said.
Nor is the term “hate speech.”
“The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage – those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe — God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth,” Land said.
And you are certainly welcome, Dr. Land, to preach on that topic every day and twice on Sunday to your followers. What you cannot expect is that your beliefs about what teachings have been revealed by God Almighty can be enshrined in the law of the state based on nothing other than your say-so, nor even based on what a majority of the state of California believe about God’s will. You need something a bit more substantive, in the face of the Constitutional rights you’re so willing to traditionally trample.
“It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God,” he said. “It would be indifference – or worse – to not tell them.”
It is quite clear that God condemns conjugal relations between the races as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God. It would be indifference – or worse – to not tell them.
Yes, you could once find people who would very seriously and earnestly and, they would claim, lovingly make that argument, citing Scripture to their purpose. Heck, you still can. No churches have been shut down that preach racial separation. You can find them in far too many places, in fact. Recognition that such treatment is a violation of Due Process and Equal Protection didn’t lead to an abandonment of the Freedom of Religion.
Christian counselor Joe Dallas, who operates a center that uses Scripture to counsel people on homosexuality, is concerned about the implications of the judge’s finding.
Counselor, counsel thyself.
“For a judge to say that it is literally damaging to homosexual people when churches simply express and maintain a clearly defined biblical approach to homosexuality, is to introduce the concept that the ‘damage’ that’s being done to homosexuals needs to be stopped. That damage will have to be stopped by silencing the Church,” Dallas said. “There’s really no other way to read that particular finding.”
Really? Tell it to the Phelpsies (and their victims). As noted, nobody’s silenced them.
And, of course, please give the “the Church” moniker a rest. As much as you’d like to pretend there some sort of grand orthodoxy on the matter that all Right-Thinking Christians (i.e., the only True Christians) believe, there are plenty who call themselves Christian who are willing and do preach for equality for gays.
A former gay activist, Dallas said he came out of the homosexual lifestyle in 1984 precisely because of the Bible’s injunction against homosexuality.
“By 1984, I had been an active member of the gay community for about six years. I also was a Christian and I realized I was going to have to make a choice between obedience to the teachings of the Scripture – or expression of my sexual feelings,” he told CNSNews.com.
“A clear look at the Scripture and a re-evaluation of my faith reminded me that my relationship with God was far more important than sexual satisfaction. And so, I pursued a life of repentance from homosexuality and abstinence from any sort of sexual behavior outside of marriage,” he said.
And more power to you, if you feel it brings you happiness and joy and closeness to God. Now … why do you feel it’s right to use the power of the state to coerce others away from a lifestyle you say you made a religious decision to leave?
The author of 11 books on Christianity and sexuality, Dallas said he would not want to see a law passed requiring all people to make the same decision he did.
“But believe me there are many other men and women who have made a similar decision and I have had the honor of working with them over the years,” Dallas said.
But while you have, for the moment, decided against a law compelling gays to become a part of your religious faith and abstain from sexual activity, you have decided apparently in favor of a law that forbids the state — not you, not your denominational brethren, but the civil government — from recognizing the committed relationships between two adults, solely on a religious basis.
“Clear biblical teaching on human sexuality did not damage us,” he said. “And let me say this plainly: clear biblical teaching on human sexuality does not damage anyone. Can that teaching be misapplied? Can people use it as an excuse to harm people? Well, of course – but the same could be said about clear biblical teaching on parenting children.
So clear teaching is okay and harmless, but misapplied teaching can in fact be harmful. Good to know. If only everyone had some objective, rational, scientific basis for accepting your “clear” Biblical teaching such that there was a justification for the law other than “We think this is what God wants us to do.”
Of course, one person’s “clear” teaching is someone else’s “misapplied” teaching. If not, then there would be no divisions within Christianity, right?
“Most people, whether Christian or non-Christian, would agree that parents should have authority over their children and that there should be consequences for misbehavior when children misbehave. Now some people have misused that authority as an excuse to physically abuse their children, but we wouldn’t be silly enough to say that because a small minority has misused that teaching and caused harm, that therefore the majority should abandon that teaching – and the same is true here.”
Um … no. The two cases have nothing to do with each other, except being another reason to foster fear that the Evil Godless Obamanation State Will Come And Take Away Our Children (and Give Them To The Gays).
In fact, the opposite would seem to be true. Just as Mr. Dallas would presumably argue that good parents would raise their children to love and obey God, would he therefore suggest that parents that do not do so (either not raising their children in a religious household or raising them in the “wrong kind” of religion) aren’t true parents at all and ought not to have their parental rights recognized by the state? Presuming the answer is no, then why should the state similarly discriminate in marriage laws based on Mr. Dallas’ religious beliefs?
I mean, really — nobody is saying that churches cannot preach against homosexuality, let alone recognize a gay marriage as being sincerely blessed by God and part of His Plan. But the state recognizes marriages every day that have nothing to do with God (or with the Southern Baptist conception of Him) — why do they get a pass but gay marriages don’t? That’s part of what Judge Walker was saying.
The ERLC’s Land, meanwhile, said Southern Baptists will not change their position on homosexuality, and will not bow to political correctness — even if U.S. courts ever rule that they must.
Nor has anyone suggested, legally, that they should, or that the courts ever would, or that such a court ruling would be Constitutional. I mean, you can preach that blacks are subhuman creatures that should be returned to slavery, or that women are inferior to men and ought to be kept pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, or that blogs are the tool of the devil and bloggers are all destined to roast in the Fiery Furnace. And you can get people to believe you and act on your beliefs and lynch blacks and beat women and tar-and-feather bloggers, and you will still be protected by the First Amendment unless someone can tie you to directly, intentionally, inciting a specific crime.
(Saying “Gays are perverted spawn of Satan who want to rape your children” is clearly insufficient; it’s not even clear that pointing at someone in particular and saying, “That faggot ought to be killed before he rapes and eats your grandpa for Satan” and your followers actually do so … still might not be enough.)
“Let me spell it out for you, If they say that telling what the Bible says about homosexuality is hate speech, and cannot be allowed — we will be arrested in our pulpits. We will obey God rather than man,” he told CNSNews.com.
Brave words, Dr. Land. If you really believe that’s what’s coming, then I fear you are sorely mistaken, and have little understanding of the Constitution. If you don’t, then they are empty mouthings to incite fear (and, no doubt, donations) amongst the faithful … and that’s hardly a Biblical stance.
I must say that I have a bit of a problem with the wording of that decision. I do not feel that it is the religious beliefs themselves that are harmful, but the acting on, and likely even the expression of, those beliefs. I wish the judge had made that distinction. I fear that the opposition may have a valid point as it stands.
Beliefs without action are meaningless. (‘Faith without works is dead.’)
That said, it’s not necessarily meaningful to a degree. Any moral code is, arguably, harmful to those who do not hold it. But when the basis for a law is largely, or wholly, based on a religious belief, then the harm that stems from that becomes codified in society.