Rhea, the term "post-Christian" really isn't meant to reflect how many people identify themselves as Christian as much as that in America, Christianity isn't the political powerhouse it used to be...for better or worse. There is a widening between secular and Christian influence and the secular is gaining much more ground...a trend that seems to be solidly progressing.
Thanks for the explanation, I had partly misunderstood. But I still see such a loud contribution of religion in politics lately that I find the opposite. So many of the politicians running for federal office these days are using religion as their vote-getter (or attempting it) that I really don't see the evidence of a decreasing influence. I realize Christians are becoming more a of minority in the general population, but the activists are getting louder, so perhaps it's deceiving.
The issue of homosexuality isn't a "religious" issue though. It isn't oppressing anyone's "religious" beliefs to say that gays should not marry, for instance. Mainly because there really isn't any established faith that embraces homosexuality. While there are many people of a particular faith that might embrace homosexuality...it generally goes against the established tenants of their faith to do so. This is certainly true of the Christian faith.
I see it from a different angle. There are several Christian denominations who DO accept gay as part of their flock, and *do* have affirmation ceremonies and *do* believe that all love between consenting adults is good and god-loved. I belong to such a church. These laws seek to deny my church the right to practice their religion, which is "open and affirming".
And the right to practice *no* religion is also protected, except when people try to make one church's laws oppress that "religious grouping".
However, the gay and lesbian community have, quite successfully, made glbt rights a civil rights and human rights issue.
quite reasonably, according to the legal arguments.
And, because America is becoming more and more secular in politics...the civil rights and human rights of glbt are being recognized more and more by both society and our government.
slowly, that is true. But very many of the supporters, as I say, are NOT atheists. They are Christian secularists. Christians who believe in keeping to their own values, but who abhor the idea of regulating the religions of others.
As a Christian, do I ever get "backlash" for my opinion that homosexuality isn't a "biological condition" that doesn't harm anyone rather than a sin issue that puts one in eternal danger as well as temporal danger...Oh yeah...I do. And, most around here will tell you, I'm pretty open and embracing of gays in general.
The backlash can be anything from patronizing "Poor deluded religious type...still brainwashed by centuries old thought...we know better now, but she just doesn't understand" to out and out vituperation...being called a homophobe and told that if I don't want a gay or lesbian minister serving me communion, I can "get out" of the church...which, since I don't, I did.
I gather from most of your posts that you are a caring person. One conundrum that a caring person faces in a religion is that the religion may force them to say something uncaring, like, "you're going to be damned and that will be the right thing." But even though the person is caring, the statement will produce backlash - because the statement is not caring - it's condemning and judgmental. Biblical, yes, but nonetheless condemning and judgmental. So the people aren't giving backlash against you, but against the statement. One can imagine that quite a few gays, especially teens, have faced a more severe "backlash" than a Christian who is preaching eternal danger. More than being called a "hypocrite" those teens have suffered violence.
You are a bit mistaken when you say, "If you just spoke out against homosexuality from the heart of your own religion, no one would debate you, no one would claim you are a hypocrite."
You're probably right. That is too Pollyanna. You would probably still get debate, but I think very little backlash by comparison. If a person says, "I am not able to speak for the conditions of others, because my religion says no one but god can judge and what do I know of a person's heart but my own? But for me, I must reject or avoid or deny homosexuality in myself, because I feel it is crucial in my path to salvation to be free of this
and every other sin", then it comes off very differently than, "you will burn in hell and that's why I am justified to use the law to force you to adhere to my religion."
My views on homosexuality is, for whatever reason a person might become homosexual, nature, nurture, experience...the bible clearly teaches it is a sin that needs to be repented of. Just like any and all other sins which we ALL...ALL...are subject to. I don't view homosexuality as being "more sinful" as any other sin...but it is still sin. I don't believe that gay marriage is any more sinful than divorce...but, just as I won't vote for policies that make divorce even easier to get than it already is...I'm not going to vote for policies that would open up gay marriage. Frankly, America will have nation-wide recognition and acceptance of gay marriage whether I vote for it or not...but, why should I vote against my conscience.
To me - the answer is obvious and full of grace; I would vote against my conscience
because my conscience is religious and to vote on religion is to force my religion on non-believers. I can *USE* my conscience on myself all I want in righteousness, but to force others to obey something purely religious, is to weaken my own rights. I am often confused how the people who insist to vote their religion into law can square that with the "pearls before swine" and "turn the other cheek" and "give him also you cloak" verses, but that confusion is mine to ponder, I cannot claim to know the right of it.
And no, I didn't think that your tone was angry at all. It's good and useful for Christians to have these discussions with non-believers.
Thank you a million for that. It is often so hard to have a calm discussion about this without people assuming that I'm trying to change or picket or am frothing at the mouth angry. The topic itself often generates a frenzy even if the debaters are quite contemplative.
I disagree with you here...like everyone, our Constitutional freedoms allow me to vote my conscience. Hence, when matters regarding gay rights come before me...I vote my conscience. (Which doesn't always mean I vote "no" btw).
Sometimes for me, my "conscience" is a weighing of two things. My personal beliefs, and my support of the contitution that protects our differences. Sometimes I have to vote for something I *don't* support, because I support their right to be different. Sometimes I vote for or advocate for something religious, even though I do not support religion, because your RIGHT to be religious is the thing I'm REALLY supporting. That how the "conscience" sometimes manifests.
There is a subtle message here: That it's OK for someone to "vote their conscience" if their conscience is telling them to vote "yes" for gay marriage, but it's oppressive or hypocritical for someone to "vote their conscience" if their conscience is telling them to vote "no" for gay marriage.
I would translate that as:
It is hypocritical to vote in a way that restricts other groups in ways that you enjoy no restriction
It is not hypocritical to keep to your own values and vote to ensure that others can keep to theirs
(as long as those values do not
unduly come back and limit yours by existing - such as voting to protect other people's rights to spank children who are not their own, like yours.)
I am still wondering though what "religion" is pro homosexual? I've been verbally slapped by enough atheists to know not to consider atheism a religion.
United Church of Christ, is one. I won't post any links due to TOS, but search on "open and affirming church" and you will come across a world-wide directory. Here's a very partial listing:
Welcoming Gay Friendly Churches in Texas - TX
(sorted by city, denomination and then church name)
218 churches
First Christian Church Abilene Disciples of Christ
Episcopal Church of the Heavenly Rest Abilene Episcopal
St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Abilene Episcopal
Exodus MCC Abilene MCC
Westminster Presbyterian Church Abilene Presbyterian
The Episcopal Church in Parker County Aledo Episcopal
San Damiano Deanery Amarillo American Orthodox Catholic
MCC Amarillo Amarillo MCC
St. Andrew Christian Church Arlington Disciples of Christ
Holy Comforter Episcopal Church Arlington Episcopal
St. Alban's Episcopal Church Arlington Episcopal
Trinity MCC Arlington MCC
The Life Center “TLC” Arlington Non-denominational
and those are just in Texas, and just in the cities starting with "A", and not even including Austin. Those are all churches who believe that it is right to be open to and affirm the love for and by homosexuals. So, yes, there are plenty of religions which support this. They don't need atheists.
