A Christian conservative responds to my post and I write him back…
Darcy, your article is the first one I have seen asking these questions. I see a lot of anger over this vote—and I acknowledge that this anger is understandable. I appreciate that you’ve taken this step back to consider the other side.
I’m a religious conservative and I voted yes on prop 8. I also volunteered dozens of hours calling people to get out the vote. What is going on in my life that guided me to do that?
We got a taste of what you and the gay rights movement have lived under for years—that our way of life was under attack. Just as it is natural for you to want to fight for your way of life, I was filled with the desire to fight for mine. I also felt I was on a divine mission.
You wrote, "conservatives believe that truth comes from their own interpretations." I wouldn’t say that. I would say that religious conservatives believe that truth is absolute and comes from God. I acknowledge that not everyone agrees what that truth is, but that doesn’t mean I’ll throw my belief away.
In the weeks leading up to this campaign, I have been flipped off, cursed at, and called a bigot, an idiot, backward, closed-minded, and told to "g fck ff nd d" (vowels removed in the original for some reason). I’ve been told I’m filled with hate, which is confusing to me because "hate" is not an emotion I’ve been feeling at all. On the contrary, I’ve felt hate directed at me in the name of tolerance and acceptance.
I’ve read so many news stories of people getting successfully sued for exercising their first amendment rights to religious freedom that I don’t know what this country is coming to. It seemed clear to me that anyone who wanted to raise their children believing that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equivalent was under attack. It felt like a small but vocal minority was taking over the country and demanding that their worldview be impressed upon everyone at all levels of society, starting in kindergarten. I felt that a group with no distinguising characteristics other than self-identification as belonging to that group was exercising undue power over the rest of the country and especially the state. And I felt that the English language was being twisted to suit their needs; they were demanding equal rights when they already had the exact same right as everyone else: The right to marry someone of the opposite sex who agreed to marry you, was not too closely related to you, was not too young, and was not currently married to someone else. I felt that the Supreme Court reducing the definition of the word "marriage" to delete the most essential part of the word was unconstitutional, unjust, and in defiance of natural law and the intent of the framers of the constitution.
I would go into more detail, but my time is limited. I doubt what I’ve said will give you a high opinion of me, but you did ask. I know you just want to live your life and gain public acceptance of that life. I have no problem with you living your life. I have no problem with the rights granted under the domestic partnership laws. But while I can tolerate, I cannot in good conscience approve. You may say it’s none of my business, but as a member of society it is my business to do what I can to keep society from going down the crapper. You don’t think your desire for public approval will lead society down the crapper. I understand that, and I respect your wishes. But that respect cannot lead me to ignore a principle so core to my belief system that denying it would be to deny my existence as a human being and to deny my place in the universe.
My response:
Peter,
Thank you so much for your thoughts. Respectful dialogue between folks who think and believe differently does not happen enough.
Fear often brings out the worst in humans and often can lead us to act violently and harmfully to other humans. I think a lot of fear is at the root of the Prop 8 debate, on both sides.
A lot of my thinking comes from my study of non-violent movements and as well as my study of Christianity, spirituality, and the Bible. My original words were really a type of prayer for peace, calling on progressives not to engage in the toxicity of hate. In fact, I am calling on them to follow the teachings of Jesus.
The framers of the constitution wanted to create a country where difference could coexist peacefully, where religious freedom and freedom of speech are central to how we govern our country. I don’t want a country that will persecute you for your belief. I don’t want a country that will persecute anybody, including me and my wife.
I do not feel written dialogue is or every will be enough. Peter, I want you to see me as a full human being, created in the image of God. I want you to see my partner (who was raised conservative Christian) crying, huddled under the covers. I want you to see the pain and hurt your vote has cause so many of my friends and family.
And after you spend some time among my sobbing and grieving family, I would like to sit down and talk about Matthew 7 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
or
Matthew 22:37– Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
or
Apostles 13:8 "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
"Love does no harm to a neighbor." I am sorry that my fellow progressives caused you harm with their angry and bitter words. We are neighbors and we have both been hurting each other in different and similiar ways.
And, I am your neighbor Peter and right now, you are hurting me.
You said "I respect your wishes. But that respect cannot lead me to ignore a principle so core to my belief system that denying it would be to deny my existence as a human being and to deny my place in the universe." I hope you are never coerced to violate your principles, I hope your inherent worth and dignity as a child of God is never demeaned. May compassion, love, and mercy fill your heart. May we both stay in that space of respect as we disagree. And May we both continue on our paths, pursuing love, justice, and truth.
Blessings on you and your loved ones.
13 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Glad to see this dialogue, difficult subject. Let’s get the conversation started so we can begin to understand each other.
Thanks Darcy for another great diary.
Peter, are you familiar with John 13:23
That’s got to be tough for someone in your position to explain, espcially when all Christians already know that Jesus was not married and had no offspring. I don’t care if Jesus was gay or bisexual, but it seems to make a helluva difference to you.
This was an embarrassment to Christians everywhere:
After the fatal and savage sufferings real Christians have endured over the centuries, how do you have the nerve to “self-identify” as a Christian and then bring up being “flipped off” and called a “bigot?” It’s like a Marine crying over a paper-cut. Thank God you were not with Dr. King fighting legalized white supremacy.
If you want to make a theological argument about sexual orientation, do so within the framework of your own denomination.
If you consider yourself a U.S. Citizen, however, it’s time to start abiding by our laws: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
For centuries some Christian denominations have decided to prohibit, among other things, usury, alcohol, miscegnation, birth control, and divorce. For centuries a variety of Christian denominations tolerated slavery. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. But, Christians fought massive wars over among other things, whether the Latin scriptures could be translated into the vernacular.
Remember Peter, you have options. If you do not like the separation of Church and State, move to Vatican City. Please give my best to Pope Benedict XVI.
Peter, this was another embarrassment to Christianity:
Who cares? It sounds like, as long as YOU do not marry another guy, YOU are good-to-go with YOUR conscience. If they pay taxes, who cares who they marry? Think of it as more revenue for the state of California.
Do you try and arrest jay-walkers? They can sure exercise “undue power,” over us careful drivers.
You also might consider having sex with a guy. I think that experience would give you a lot more credibility arguing against gay and lesbian marriage. A tasteful video might help document that you were not making it up. It’s got to, however, be a one time deal. If you go back for seconds, people might start thinking you were gay.
Darcy:
I am straight, Jewish and liberal, and I support your call for dialogue. I am also a JP who feels that the government should have as little to do with marriage as possible.
Dialogue: In the interests of dialogue, I have joined my neighbors’ bible study class, run through their evangelical church, under a mutual “no converting” agreement. It has been an wonderful experience. I have met many wonderful people (and one closed-minded individual.) We have agreed to disagree on several topics, most recently on predestination. I have given them a small window into Jewish thoughts regarding God, as well as Jewish practices. They seemed to particularly like my introduction to the High Holy Days as an insight in Judaism in general. I have also helped with their “Angel Food” ministry, which sells large boxes of groceries and meat for $30 to anyone who cares to sign up. No religious or financial qualifications required.
Interestingly, we are studying Romans, which represents the final break between Judaism and Christianity. (Works vs. belief, circumcision vs. circumcision in the heart, etc.) I think they have come to appreciate Jesus as a Jew. (I have been able to fend off their “Jews for Jesus” overtures, which seem to go beyond our pact.)
This is a long way of saying that we should keep these lines of communication open as a way of bridging, but not eliminating these differences. Eventually, we may discuss such hot topic as abortion and gay marriage, but we are not there yet.
Government and marriage: As I indicated, I am a JP in Connecticut, and so may be asked to officiate at a same-sex marriage, although I have not as yet, nor even at a civil union ceremony, which was allowed before the recent Supreme Court decision. If asked, I will do so with a joyous heart.
Nevertheless, I feel that excess government involvement in marriage is a bad idea. I recently read a minister’s argument against getting a marriage license (link anyone?) as it corrupts the religious rite of marriage, and implies a civil intervention in a holy covenant. While I do not fully agree with his argument, I agree with his conclusion. Government should not be in the marriage game, beyond its role as an overseer of contacts in general.
Government has gone beyond that function. It now grants certain particular rights to married couples: tax incentives, community property rights, implicit and explicit rights to inherit, insurance benefits, rights to intervene in health decisions, etc. The logic behind this seems to be that the government (at all levels) gets some benefits from marriage. A couple that pools financial resources is less likely to need government support. If there are children in the family (however they got there), two parents are more effective at raising them, etc.
Once the government offers these advantages, I believe, as the California Supreme Court stated, that such advantages must be offered without prejudice. Proposition 8 violates that requirement.
A way out? As I see it the only way out is through the federal courts, and eventually the Obama Supreme Court. There are two ways that this can have a satisfactory end. The “conservative” way – getting government out of the marriage business and letting everyone have the same right to a certificate of civil union. (Incidentally, in France, the document is called a “Fiche d’Etat Civile.”) This would be my choice. The other is the “liberal” way – establishing a fundamental “right to marry” in the United States. This would satify the immediate need, but would lead to further decades of controversy, as did Roe v. Wade.
Let’s keep a discussion open – and civil.
Darcy,
In your reply, you said,
“a group with no distinguising characteristics other than self-identification as belonging to that group was exercising undue power over the rest of the country and especially the state.”
Was that group the evangelical Christians or individuals in favor of gay rights?
From the context, it’s pretty clear, but the language that you used perfectly characterizes the perceptions of many Americans about what the conservative Christians want to do. After all, 43’s presidency was possible only with the enthusiastic support of this group, which could very easily be seen as “exercising undue power over the rest of the country and especially the state.”
Cobernicus,
Great points. And wow–joining your neighbor’s bible class? Thank you for really reaching out “across the aisle” so to speak. That is a prophetic example.
Raised Unitarian Universalist in a strict humanist tradition, I’ve had to overcome a lot of my preconceptions about religion, Christianity, and the Bible.
And actually, at least on an abstract level, I tend to side with your “conservative” way out–getting the government out of the marriage business. Marriage as an government institution represents how we are not quite living up to “separation of church and state.” And, I think that marriage represents the anxiety and tension this nation lives in has around Christianity and governance. We have a lot of parsing and clarifying we need to do.
thanks for your reply 47 rusty.
Just for clarification, it was a commenter Peter that said “a group with no distinguising characteristics other than self-identification as belonging to that group was exercising undue power over the rest of the country and especially the state.”
Perhaps some of us should apologize for all the insults toward Sarah Palin. Perhaps more than one member of her family is mentally challenged. But neither she or her child deserve the criticism they have been getting.
See my comment following article
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1527
One thing she did that is unfortunate, she further cemented the marriage between Jesus Freaks and Hawks, something I doubt that Jesus would have approved of or Jesus Christ wants,
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1521
RichardkanePA
Off topic, but imho it was the Roman’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and again in 125 which severed Judaism from Jews who were following Jesus. The plurality of thought within Judaism was gone after 70 and “the Nazarenes” were no longer allowed inside the synagogue. Those “Nazarenes” who survived the Roman slaughter lost their jobs and their families if they choose to try and integrate their faith in Jesus of Nazareth with rabbinic Judaism. I’m not trying in any way to assign blame here. I’m just in a compact way trying to impart the complexity of the situation as I understand it. This is why none of the Gospels were written before 70. Mark’s Church, Matthew’s Church, Luke’s Church, John’s Church (and the other non-canonical gospel authors)didn’t need them until after 70. After 70ce these Churches needed a text to read in their brand new liturgy. I think a lot of the NT anti-semitism, especially in Matthew is really anger at being thrown out of their synagogues. ymmv.
It’s the destruction by those Roman legions that made the Greek and Roman communities so critical. Until the 20th century (discoveries of Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls) the Hellenized version of Christianity was the sole surviving link to the historical Jesus. We really lost access to the essential Jewishness of Jesus of Nazareth.
OT, another huge movement imho in the early Church was from an immediate eschatology (Paul’s first letter, 2 Galations is a good example. Sell the farm, because Jesus is coming back on his chariot real soon.) When the money raised from selling the farm, began to run out, Paul had to develop a more realized eschatology. How he held it together, I don’t know.
Boo,
You are correct from a historical perspective. In our discussions with the group, I try to give some historical context, as you did, but must tread carefully. Yes, Romans came about after the Jews and “Nazarenes” began their separate ways, but reconciliation or accommodation was possible until the clear theological and practical split defined in Romans. During this period, most Christians were, in fact, Jews, but the emphasis on the divinity of Jesus and his status as the Messiah alienated many congregations.
The Christians were in a difficult time. Their “home base” was no longer as welcoming and they were facing prosecution by the Romans in Judea. They had to look elsewhere for survival
I once referred to Romans as a marketing document, i.e., a plan to spread Christianity to the Gentiles. I believe that, to make it palatable, Paul had to minimize the ritual elements (e.g., keeping Kosher, observing the Sabbath, etc.) and particularly get over the need for circumcision. Hence the irrevocable split.
Darcy,
Sorry to get OT. I won’t do it again.
Why the apology? Please, bring on the OT. Bring on Torah. Bring on the Talmud.
In the early years (right after Jesus’s death which I think is estimated at around 30 CE), whether Jesus followers were Jewish or something new was a big debate. I find it fascinating that the doctrine of the Trinity (which came around a couple hundred years later) could be viewed as way Christians differentiated themselves from Jews and Roman pagans. Could the Trinity not be viewed as a hybrid of pantheistic Roman religion and Hebrew monotheism?
I am loving this dialog.
I have studied Christianity for a long time.
Everything I need to know I learned in Sunday School.
But, as an adult, I’ve gone looking in the weeds as it were. There is a tremendous amount of belief amongst “higher” theologians, like Marcus Borg, who really peak my interest.
In the mean time, I go to church every week and seek to keep an open mind that I may be able to interpret and share the word.
Thank you all…and now off to send this link to my Jewish writing partner, who’s cousin by marriage has become a new-born Baptist. Talk about interesting dialog!!!
Now that I look again, the topic is broader than just Proposition 8.
I feel that by the definition of most religions,including Judaism, a marriage is between a man and a woman. It is becuase this is a religious definition, however, that it should be kept apart from government sanction or restriction. I would be perfectly OK if my Rabbi were to refuse to marry a same sex couple in a Jewish ceremony. It is his job to interpret Jewish law. On the other hand, I would be happy to conduct a civil marriage between people of the same sex, because I believe that they have the same rights as anyone else to share the joys (and pains) of married life, and the government authorized benefits of the same.
Our government should neither create an establishment of religion, nor prevent individuals frome exercising their religious beliefs, even if I, and everyon else disagree with them. (I seem to recall reading something like this somewhere.)
I also feel it is a sign of weakness and lack of faith on the part of Evangelicals to insist that the government help impose their beliefs on others. If the good news is as convincing as they believe it is, no such support is necessary.