Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to RELIGION NEEDS TO TAKE A FEW STEPS AWAY FROM POLITICS
gay unions
the Episcopal Church has made itself well known now by recognizing gay unions and raising the ire of both Episcopal conservatives and Anglican conservatives, besides being looked at askance by much of the religious community.
the gay union/marriage issue is an emerging subject for debate for years to come and the problem comes from passages in the Bible.
there will be extreme disagreement over the issue. but the issue has to be looked at in the broader perspective.
biological, genetic and anthropological observations and discoveries have to help define now whether or not homosexuality is truly a sin.
we can look at Biblical passages. we can first understand that with the King James and subsequent translations what we read is a document that is interpreted in places by the perceptions of the time in which the translators lives, thus reflecting their own religious views, which imposes itself upon we who are reading, overlaying the original meaning (of a 16th century Greek document) and in turn coloring our contemporary viewpoint.
we can also ask ourselves about the efficacy of the passages and we first come across Leviticus and in relation to christianity, either discard the book in its entirety or accept the entire book as valid in our time, and we have seen demonstrated here on Blogit that there are parts of the book that no one would accept today. Also, Christianity says that this is Old Testament, not relevant to Christianity. So a quote from here would be invalid.
Then there are passages in the New Testament that need closer look.
one passage talks about "effiminate" in the KJV, when an interlinear renders this "allowing themselves to be abused by men" -- which could be homosexuality, or could be anyone, man or woman.
at any rate, we are reading letters addressed to Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, not to us, pertaining to matters of early first century believers -- a lot of first corinthians is about that -- and without the benefit of biological, anthropological, genetic and other observations and discoveries that tell us that homosexuality is as natural a disposition as heterosexuality, albeit a smaller percentage.
Were these letters written today, to us, I personally feel there would be different subjects and different viewpoints presented, and homosexuality would not be mentioned -- sexual abuse, yes, but not the homosexuality that is mainly practiced today, which is entirely different from what was publicly known in the first century.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 22, 2004 at 7:22 AM
| link to this | reply
holidays
easter (maybe) and christmas are so entrenched in public way of life and are so much of an opportunity for families to get together that it would be difficult if not impossible because of public opinion to not have holidays for particularly Christmas.
I don't see any holidays for Easter, maybe Spring Break, just like for Christmas, it's Winter Break, which is all right.
we need the respite.
besides these aren't originally christian, they came from prechristian pagan observances, very obviously. so in essence they are observances of long dead religions, which is fine unless you want to resurrect prechristian paganism, and then this becomes respect for religion.
we probably should also respect more other religious holidays, such as yom kippur, and ramadan, in order to give due respect to other religions, or maybe arrange some common day(s) that will give regard to all religions.
holidays like this are necessary, respites from the normal drudgery of life, that's probably why they were instituted.
they also recognize the cycles of nature, which more people should be aware of.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 22, 2004 at 7:04 AM
| link to this | reply
If the passages in the bible that 'condemn' homosexuality (three to be precise) are adhered to, it is also necessary to adhere to two other things condemned at the same time - namely, no adultery (as aforementioned, and remember this includes ALL remarriages) and no eating pork. Similarly, all strict followers of the bible must offer up their virgin daughters to be raped by homosexuals and they must also employ slaves. The latter two, you see, are fine according to the bible. You CANNOT adhere to one whilst ignoring the others. If you are following the bible, you follow the bible. You do not pick and choose.
posted by
Witty_Woman
on October 22, 2004 at 3:12 AM
| link to this | reply
PastorTom
But some churches do not feel that the Bible says that.
Part of religious freedom is the right to interpret the Bible as that particular church sees fit. And it is your right to disagree with them about it. One big thing about religion is that is can be altered by whoever to fit with the views they wish it to fit with.
So far you sound like a more open minded Christian than many others here. As long as you stay open minded and do not think that every time someone disagrees you they are attacking you, you'll do just fine. And trust me, I am going to disagree with you a lot. As long as you show respect for my beliefs I will show respect for yours. I have already pissed off more than my share of Christians here because I can get very passionate at times about what I believe in.
I look forward to having Christina here who really wants to have real debates and will not resort to name calling, insulting and dancing around the questions.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 21, 2004 at 7:55 PM
| link to this | reply
I agree with PastorTom. Churches shouldn't have to answer to government
on homosexuality. The government has no business telling the church how to run its programs anymore than the church has the right to tell the state how to run government.
posted by
Ariala
on October 21, 2004 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes and no.
I agree that the state should not legislate morality. I do not think it is government's place to ban homosexuality. My problem is when the churches allow it. The constitution protects freedom of religion, and I think there should be no legal interference if one denomination or another permits gay marriage. However, I believe that the foundation of the doctrine of the church is the Bible, which clearly forbids homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. Pastors who perform gay marriages should not have to give an account to the government, but they will have to give an account to God. I hope that comment does not lose some new found friends in blogit land, but if the Bible is no longer the standard, then the church is adrift without an anchor. I'm all for the separation of church and state, it's the separation of church and morality that troubles me.
posted by
PastorTom
on October 21, 2004 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
sassy
I celebrate Christmas and Easter, just not as religious holidays. Everyone needs to take some time off and it does not have to be for a religious reason. I do not think it is hypocritical at all to want holidays off or weekends. I enjoy holidays and take full advantage of them to go and spend time with my family. I liked having my weekends off (And look forwards to the time when I am working again and hopefully get my weekends of) once more to spend time with my family. It had nothing at all to do with religion.
Also, understanding that one should not force their beliefs on others is not the same as not believing. You can believe in God but see that having prayer in school or the The Commandments posted in front of a government building as a from of the government forcing religion on others. That is just showing respect to others. If I had my way, there would be a law that said once a year everyone in the country has to sit down and watch the original Star Wars trilogy for their own good. But I understand that not everyone wishes to have such enlightenment (I was surprised to learn that more and more people have not even seen one Star Wars movie) and so I can not force them to do something which I fell would be of great enjoyment to anyone of sound mind.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 21, 2004 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply
rhema
It is not Christians values per say. The are values and there are religious beliefs, such as homosexuals not being allowed equal rights and us going after Iraq in a holy war or putting God and his laws first. The country has to put the people first and see that their needs are met before it looks to see what God would want. Otherwise we get a legal Sabbath that is determined by those in power. We get our lifestyles forced on us as determined by those in power. We get certain freedom taken away which more more get determined by those in power.
If those in power get to use their religious beliefs as the ideas of how our laws should be, then we are not free to worship or live as we wish. Instead we have to follow their religious views.
We are not a theocracy and so we should never go on any kind of Holy war and we should never make laws that deprive people of their rights because we are following the Bible.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 21, 2004 at 7:21 PM
| link to this | reply
I agree. Good post.
posted by
Ariala
on October 21, 2004 at 7:17 PM
| link to this | reply
I think that religion and politics should
not be in the same conversation. These politicians took prayer out of schools, and faught against using "In God we Trust", but they still celebrate Christmas and Easter. What bigots! They should be forced to work on Sundays and holidays since God isn't a real big issue to them.
posted by
Sherri_G
on October 21, 2004 at 7:11 PM
| link to this | reply
I think promoting Christian values is a good thing
posted by
rhema
on October 21, 2004 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Reaganesque
I could rewrite the add to perfectly fit the democrats
The add itself was very insulting and I found nothing at all heart felt about it.
It would have been one thing if he had stayed away from the accusations and such, but he did all he could to spread propaganda. He showed very clearly he was the sterotypical Rebuplican.
I streotype no one myself.
The writer of the article however sterotyped himself when he felt the need to point out just how much the add cost him. I do not care what the reason, to tell everyone just how much money he spent (Almost three years house hold income for my family) on a personal add, says he is everything he is claiming the rebuplicans to not be. He could have proven his point and just said 'I paid for this add out of my own pocket' and would have looked much more humble than what I felt was bragging about how much he could throw away on one full page add.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 21, 2004 at 5:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Wash. Post Ad
I don't think that the purpose of the ad was to say, "this is how Republicans are and Democrats are not". It was aiming at the stereotypes of rich, greedy Republicans that many believe (which he mentioned in the beginning). I have to disagree, however, that most of this would be said by a Democrat. Most Democrats are not "proud that the President embraces a belief in God", nor are most Democrats "eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it". Most Democrats are also not "disgusted with the courts", nor are most Democrats "deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary 'leadership' qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals."
Either way, I thought the ad was heartfelt (whether it comes from a Republican or a Democrat), which is why I posted it. And, as you know, I believe Kerry is the one with the misguided ideas
posted by
Reaganesque
on October 21, 2004 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Good point, Reverand...
church+state=trouble.
posted by
theinnkeepersdaughter
on October 21, 2004 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
The religions of this nation do a lot of good things, but I don't want a religious ideologue calling the shots in Washington, or anywhere else for that matter.
posted by
aardvark
on October 21, 2004 at 1:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Gay marriages aren't allowed in the UK either, although I don't know why. They are allowed in other parts of Europe, so eventually I expect it will be uniform throughout the continent. A gay friend of mine and his partner went to Amsterdam to get married. It wasn't legal here, but it gave them that extra sense of commitment and if that's what they wanted and it made them happy, I can't see the harm in it. Far better to have a committed gay marriage than a hetereosexual one where the partners are sleeping around with all and sundry. I do wonder how many christians realise that if they remarry (even if their partner has died) they are committing adultery in the eyes of god and will not be accepted into their precious heaven. They always seem to ignore that part of the bible!
posted by
Witty_Woman
on October 21, 2004 at 11:39 AM
| link to this | reply
I've made the gay marriage argument so many times, and the argument that's the closest to be being non-religious is also the silliest: If we allow gay marriages, the next thing is people will want to marry relatives and then animals. It's quite possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
posted by
roofpig
on October 21, 2004 at 11:33 AM
| link to this | reply