"There are lots of states that don't support gay, lesiban, and bisexual rights so Wyoming is not alone here. And personally I have to go with what the Bible says about this issue."The above quote came from a young woman in response to what occurred in Wheatland, WY recently. I couldn't help but discuss the issues associated with this line of what we'll nicely refer to as "logic." If we're going to quote the Bible here, miss, you can't pick and choose what you want to support. Are you also aware of the slavery in the Bible? Are you aware of the lower role of women in the Bible? And are you aware of the instance in which the Bible decrees death for the crime of homosexuality? All are contained within. But this isn't about the Bible--I'm not aiming to trash it, but I am aiming to discuss why sometimes one cannot always literally accept everything between the covers. And I know plenty of wonderful people who have no trouble reconciling LGBT support with being religious.
If you're unfamiliar with instance to which I am referring, check the background out really quickly: http://politicalpromiscuity.blogspot.com/2010/01/equality-state-apparently-not.html. I'm going to keep chronicling the debate that stems around this event, because it is indicative of a fight that the LGBT community is fighting for everywhere--and frankly, they shouldn't have to fight it alone.
One cannot address the LGBT rights without pulling in religion, and that's what I'm going to delve into today. Can religion have its place in twenty-first century politics?
Anyone who advocates the use of slavery or the genocide of the LGBT in the twenty-first century would not only be despicable, but would probably be committing social suicide. This isn't a bad thing--discrimination and hate have no place in modernity and democracy. However, by claiming that Wyoming is right in not supporting LGBT rights because the Bible condemns it is essentially agreeing with this logic. It is no secret that slavery is a large part of the Bible, and many modern Christians say that this is because slavery was just a normal institution in those times, and the Church has evolved to adapt with new societal norms. Well isn't it time to adapt again? I'm just trying to prove a point. I realize that the Bible is an ancient text, and that differert views, values, and beliefs were present then that cannot really compared to our social and political system today. Christians use this same argument--so why doesn't it apply to the case of gay marraige?
This isn't about Christianity, however, and I'm not here to criticize religion--that gets us nowhere, because I see no gain in trashing religious people in a post about equality and the necessity of eliminating discrimination. I do believe, however, that we cannot call upon an ancient text to guide us politically. If we did so, we'd support enslaving other people, we'd support putting women in a subservient role, and we'd support death for homosexuality. Now I know the many religious people I know don't advocate these things (and if you do, you're simply not compatible with modern democracy), so there's no reason that Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") can't be overlooked in order to embrace what I would bet most Christians would say is what the religion truly promotes: and that's love and compassion.
To demonstrate this, I witnessed a little discussion on a friend's Facebook status in which the Wheatland issue was being discussed. One young man, a practicing Christian, pointed out that LGBT rights can in fact transcend religious differences. He said,
"The truth of the matter is GLBT rights and marriage IS a religious issue. I go to a church that welcomes and conducts weddings for all couples. A Baptist, Pentecostal or otherwise has no right to tell me what ceremonies my church can and cannot preform, nor can their viewpoint keep my faith from loving and accepting all of the Creators children. In essence forcing the removal of those signs is an infringement on the teachings of many churches and faith groups."Furthermore,
"The sad and frustrating fact is that Wyoming isn't alone, but running with a group doesn't mean you are right. If we are going to live under the laws of Leviticus we will be no better than the Taliban or any extreme religious group."Well said. So, although it's perfectly acceptable to use religion as your way of interpreting the world in your personal life, but a literal acceptance of the rules and laws decreed in the Bible are not compatible with modern life in a liberal democratic society. The core values and emotions associated with Christianity, however, such as love and morality and compassion, are welcome in any political system--but religion stops having a place the moment it begins to promote discrimination and injustice.
So, back to the issue at hand: although religion is a large part of a conservative community such as Wheatland, WY, I'm fairly certain that the conservatives I know don't want their platform to be associated with hatred and discrimination. The posting of a sign claiming "no place for hate" with an LGBT group simply listed as a sponsor cannot be equated with pushing a pro-gay agenda on an unwelcoming conservative majority. Do you advocate tearing down a mosque that you drive by on your way to work, simply because it is pushing a pro-Muslim view on you? News flash: we're all going to see things we don't agree with, but that doesn't mean they need to be eliminated. Embrace diversity; sometimes being a little bit uncomfortable is what makes us grow up the most.
Sources:
http://www.facebook.com/kpontar1?v=feed&story_fbid=443975665152
Posts
I hope the current events in Wheatland, Wyoming bring up new points in the discussion within the Wyomingite schema. It's sadly indicative of American society that posters were taken down in a high school because of LGBT sponsorship. But is religion really the issue here? From a very legalistic point of view it could be argued the school and the parents had every Constitutional right to remove the sign. The Supreme court ruled that freedom of speech is restrcited in the context of minors. So if this wasn't a school sponsored event and adults compalined about the ideas their children were expose to, even if the objection was to a sponsor instead of the message content, they had the legal right to remove the banner. But because this blog countered the argument using Biblical examples I have to think maybe Rob Bell is right in advocating that "this" is actually about "that".
Neither of us can refrain from discussing and dissecting the logic of the quoted young woman from Wyoming. "there are lots of states that don't support, gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights". Fact. Maybe it sounds like she's "running with the group" but stop to consider that nearly 70% of people in the US oppose gay marriage. Gallup polls have even found the number of people supporting same sex marriage has decreased since 2007 (www.gallup.com/poll/118378-majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx). It sounds like she's inarticuately expressing that the current events in Wyoming are not isolated.
We've already touched on the right to free speech. This young woman had the right to voice the influences on her political stances. And just as you have the right to attack it via the blogosphere, I have the right to voice my response. There's an lack of logic for mocking others for selectively quoting the bible, as you might just fall to the same vice. Especially when trying to establish the Bible as an archaic and outdated religious text.
We cannot dismiss the Bible for it's verses on slavery and equality of women simply by taking them at facevalue. In the ancient Middle East, slavery was not like the inhuman system of the American south. In Exodus specific laws regarding slaves ie they must be paid, must be freed after seven years of labor, must be treated well...etc. Slavery wasn't based on race but on economic status, it was akin to working a modern low wage job. For a much more eloquent and indepth exploration check out www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html.
As for the role of women let's go back to the begining. Literally. Genesis 2:8 reads "I will make a helper suitable for him". In the first two chapters of Genesis, the only thing that God declares as "not good" is Adam being alone. So he makes him a partner, of which Adam remarks "this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flresh" (Genesis 2:23). Adam is saying of Eve "where I am weak, she is strong, and where she is weak, I am strong". Man and woman fit together, they compliment one another.
Admittedly, Exodus and Deuteronomy both contain verses that seem barbaric towards women. Readers can be repulsed by what appears to be the inhuman treatement of women when Exodus 22 commands "if a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, eh must pay the bride price and she shall be his wife". Yep, lack of reedming quality at face value there. But women had no rights in the ancient Middle East. A raped woman was considered violated and void of any worth. What the Bible is telling us here is that she does have worth. She is hers to give and hers alone. It says to man if you want to have sex with her, you must take her as your wife. Care for her. Provide for her needs. She is your equal and you will treat her as such. Nothing about dialectical relationships, which leads to the logical conclusion that men have twisted these verses (and others) to support a platform. Not that the Bible supports a platform of inequality.
Over the years the Church has dynamically changed. Many denominations allow women to serve as pastors, elders, and reverands even though a strict legalist view suggests otherwise. Other denominations have moved away from decying all methods of birth control even though a legalistic reading of the Bible will tell the reader children are a blessing.
You wrote it well, discrimination and hate have no place in modernity and democracy. But they also had no place in the New Testament either. Jesus purposefully sought out the fringes of society. He went to the lepers, the tax collectors, and the disgraced women of society bringing the idea that something was wrong. Something serious- something hellish happens when people are treated as objects. The New Testament is a new covenant, which is about seeing people as God sees them (reference Hebrews).
As to the comparison of the moral code, values and beliefs present in the "ancient texts" of the Bible "cannot really [compare] to our social and political system today", I find this difficult to believe. It's wrong to kill. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to dehumanize people, to objectify them, to rape and abandon. As to teh claim that living by the rules of the Bible would be as restrice as the rules of the Taliban...the Old Testament is extremely restrictive, so yes if we lived by it's moral code we WOULD live like the Taliban. But learn to see people as God sees them. The New Testament teacher that we are forgiven bythe sacrifice of Jesus instead of the codified forgiveness of the Old Testament. Romans 8:35, 38-39 specifically tells us that nothign can come between us and God's love because of Jesus's sacrifce. Blood is no longer required. Hebrews, Acts, 1 and 2 John, 1 Timothy...there are so many verses in the New Testament explaining actions and deeds once demanded cannot grant forgiveness. We no longer have to live by codes and regulations to live a truly Christian life. We have to embrace and follow the teachings of Christ.
As to overlooking key verses, they're not contained just in Leviticus. We can't pick and choose verses. It's a slippery slope to argue it's okay to disregard one verse because of a new and modern cultural consideration. Let's just disregard the verses about lust because that guy is really hot. Let's disregard the verses about giving to the poor because my wallet is feeling a little tight this month. The Bible is not about enslavement or forcing women to be subservient or killing homosexuals (which I'm taking is a very narrow and twisted interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah). It is about love and compassion. But my Christian milieu means loving the soul as much as the physical being. I believe that there is a Heaven and Hell. There are consequences here on Earth if you reject the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So I'm going to love and be compassionate about the soul as well as the physical being.
Your friend is right to say that a Baptist or a Pentecostal has no right to tell him what ceremonies the Church can and cannot perform. The ceremonies the Church should and should not perform must follow the teaching of God and Jesus to avoid false preaching. 2 John tells us "anyone who gets so progressive in his thinking that he walks out on the teaching of Christ, walks out on God" And maybe it's becoming over legalistic but I'm in support of same sex civil unions. I do believe its wrong to with hold civil rights from people. Civil rights are the issue here- not religious rites. If a religion teaches a lifestyle is wrong, and people cannot handle that then keep that lifestyle out of the religion. A wedding in a Church is a choice, not a right.
We should not be so well adjusted into our modern culture that we along with it, without thinking and questioning. I feel perfectly comfortable equating my personal values with my political values. I don't read the Bible at face value and I don't believe it's meant to be taken shallowly or twisted to fit different agendas. Doing so is how the South biblically excused slavery and how the abusive husband biblically excuses degrading his wife. Meditating on the messages of the Bible has taught me to love everyone even if I disagree with their personal choices. This argument and subsequent entanglement of politics and religion is about love. But we need to be careful what we claim as logic. We cannot dismiss one side as illogical without carefully approaching our own line of reasoning.
Sorry for so many comments, but my reaction to the original post has been weighing on me. I finally found the courage to "speak up" and tried to express my beliefs in a non-accusatory manner. I just ask any discussion do the same.
Post a Comment