Why we should not paint Christians with a broad brush.

[eirias]

Real Live Preacher has some beautiful words about homosexuality and the larger Christian message.

The Salty Vicar writes about homosexuality too. He also writes thoughtfully about the changing economics of sex and how the vast economic changes in the world must affect our interpretation of Scripture.

If I had been exposed to these people when I was younger, I might still be a Christian. I would probably not, however, still be a Catholic.

Comments

[rms10.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thrilled with the RLP piece, because if you're going to say, "They ignore the next verse," you should quote that next verse. Or talk about what the theme of the passage is, rather than just say, "You're wrong because you're not reading it fully."

I did like the Salty Vicar pieces, though. I don't really go to church anymore, but sometimes I think that if I ever want to go I should try an Episcopilian church.

The problem is, since I reject lots of arguments based on religion, I don't feel comfortable picking and choosing which religious arguments I agree with.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Did you read RLP's follow-up post (http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html)? In it he goes into a bit more detail with biblical analysis of passages dealing with homosexuality. I'll admit that he doesn't analyze passages dealing with the necessity of caring for the poor or eschewing materialism, but it's my understanding that those aspects of Christianity are more central than the sexual purity laws.

The problem is, since I reject lots of arguments based on religion, I don't feel comfortable picking and choosing which religious arguments I agree with.

That's a good point; perhaps it is hubris of me to have preference for one religious person's worldview over another. Still, I left the Church because of my strong sense that official Catholic policy was wrong about God, wrong in a particularly poisonous, self-righteous, and damnable way, and it warms my heart when religious people feel similarly.

Also, people with the authority to speak about God have something that I lack, in working for cultural change. I am irreparably partisan in this cultural war - I'm one of the detested "liberal elite," with my agnosticism and my advanced-degree-in-progress and my appreciation for the NYT and my utter ignorance about sports. As a result, it would be really difficult, maybe impossible, for me to do any of the work that really needs to be done to increase public acceptance of homosexuality. The religious community has an advantage: they have more common ground with the Religious Right. Their religious arguments really are important. We will probably win the gay marriage battle eventually anyway, but it would be much much better to win it peacefully, as it were - by convincing people rather than overpowering them. Browbeating people with the "my culture is better than your ignorant backwoods superstitious crapola" message will only increase resentment.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Nice followup. I hadn't realized the argument against homosexuality was that weak. And the number of people on the planet who try to follow Leviticus is incredibly minute. Probably most Jews don't even try to follow it.

[rms10.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen the follow-up; that was very well done.

I guess I see the need for a religious argument at the grassroots level, but even then, how often do people change their religious beliefs? I'm not sure you'll convince someone that they've been interpreting the Bible "incorrectly" for the past forty years.

I suppose that I don't like basing public policy on religion -- I'd rather see a discussion based on civil rights and the Constitution. I know plenty of people base their morals on religion, but I'd rather they argue politics without religious references. It's possible, and in fact some on the right wing are getting very good at that.

And if all that makes me one of the "liberal elite", oh well. I'm not going to apologize for demanding a bit of logic from people.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't like basing public policy on religion, either! I think it's shameful that people try, and moving public policy debates away from religion is absolutely the right thing to do. But the reason that we need public policy debates on the topic in the first place is that many people, deep down, believe that homosexual activity is bad - and I'd like to see this change. I'd like to see our cultural rift flatten out - this kind of diversity, the kind that polarizes into a culture war, is the bad kind, you know? And I like it when people make the attempt to bridge that gap, to show people on one side where they might be wrong about something.

I have to admit, though, that as is the case with Salty, the issue is settled for me, as it may be settled for other people. I can't fathom how anyone could possibly convince me that homosexuality is immoral; and so perhaps it's folly to think that people like Real Live Preacher are going to have any luck. Ahh, well. I can hope.

The catch...

[roamin-umpire.livejournal.com]

... is that many folks don't want to disentangle public policy from religion. In fact, they want morality (and specifically their morality, which is based on their religion) to guide and inform public policy.

Come to think of it, I don't want the country passing immoral laws, either. It's just that my idea of what's moral and what's immoral matches up much better with, say, yours than it does with "theirs."

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Knowing stuff about sports makes one more theologically credible? Cool! I'm a Sox fan now -- eat my moral high ground, baby!

P.S. eirias, my culture is better than your ignorant backwoods superstitious crapola. ;)

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Damn it, woman, don't make me resent you! That would take far too much work, and I'm lazy.