Last week when the California Supreme Court declared laws banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, I posted some of my initial thoughts. I quickly took the post down, though, because I was nervous about how people might react. I decided to wait a few days.
It seems to me that the court made the right decision. Some have said that the court overstepped its bounds by trying to set social policy. Technically speaking, they didn’t set or approve anything; they simply declared existing laws banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Others have said that the decision to allow or prohibit gay marriage is up to the people. I agree, but again, the decision to declare a law as unconstitutional or not is up to the court.
Homosexual behavior and marriage goes against God’s word. You can’t read the Bible and not be aware of that. But let’s remember, the United States is not God’s chosen nation. We’re not Israel. And speaking strictly from an American standpoint, the government cannot tell people whom they are or are not allowed to marry, on any basis. Same-sex marriage is a moral issue, and asking the government to ban it is asking the government to legislate morality. It’s asking for a high level of government influence over private behavior. If you put that on the conservative-liberal spectrum, it falls way over on the left (which is interesting, because it’s people on the right who are asking for the ban).
As a Christian, I don’t support same-sex marriage. But I think the court’s decision was the right one from an American standpoint. That doesn’t mean that I’m approaching this as an American first and as a Christian second. It means that I expect the court to operate by America’s standards and not necessarily my Christian standards (which is exactly its job). And I don’t see any precedent in scripture leading me to think that it’s my Christian duty to change our constitution (state or federal) and make it agree with Biblical morals and values. Jesus never bothered to try and change Rome’s laws. It just didn’t seem to be the top priority.
These are my thoughts, and they might be a bit sloppy - please, no angry comments.
Last night Melody and I were watching an episode of the West Wing. C.J. was speaking with the Chinese Ambassador, and at the end of their conversation the Ambassador said to her, “The American dream is financial, not ethical.” I thought it was a good line, and probably very true for many people.
Sometimes I get the feeling that security and protection are being turned into gods in the U.S. More and more often it sounds like people are trying desperately to achieve total and perfect safety from any and every threat no matter what the cost. I’m sure it’s not everyone, of course, and I won’t try and label anyone. But I don’t think there is such a thing as total and perfect safety. Ultimately it’s a myth, like the proverbial utopia.
Whether or not my feeling is right, it’s not good for us to strive for security above all else. I don’t think it’s very Christian. It’s not very American, either.
You know, the Constitution and the Bible are not the same thing.
That’s why I don’t think the U.S. is a “Christian Nation.” It never really was.
I’d make a terrible President. I would either try and uphold the Constitution and feel like a sell-out, or I’d try and make things look like the Bible’s picture of good government (the way Israel was supposed to work; or the way God’s kingdom will work someday) and ruin the country.
Because the Constitution and the Bible are not the same thing. I just don’t think you can uphold both. Not very often, anyway.
I came across a question in a book today: “Why is the common meal regarded as the place where Jesus’ death is proclaimed?”
Paul spoke about how the cross made a spectacle of the existing powers and authorities, how it stripped them bare and revealed them as the really are - powers of violence and death. Quoting from the book again, and speaking about the early Christian community after the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection, “Their common meal became a place to remember Jesus’ death. As often as the meal was celebrated, Rome’s vicious deed was named as such. The remembrance of Jesus’ death gave Rome’s imperial oppression the name that unmasked it.”
Jesus’ death and resurrection unmasked the powers, ended the charade. The powers offered one script, one version of how things really were, and the work of Christ trounced it and revealed the truth. And every time people remembered Christ’s death at their common meals they further loosened the grip of the powers of death.
Then it hit me - of course the common meal is the place of remembering! What human practice could be more basic, more fundamental, more influential than eating a meal? Even aside from the scriptural significance of meals in Jewish culture, eating traditions (even mundane, every-day ones) form one of the largest, strongest and most necessary threads in the fabric of any society. Placing the remembrance of Christ’s death at people’s tables offers the most potent resistance to powers that would deny Christ and his work. Everyone eats, and if people proclaim Christ’s death every time they are at table then the oppressive story of the powers is quickly unwritten.
Of course the meal is the place of remembrance. Where else would it be?
As usual, these are just thoughts. I’m not trying to make the Eucharist more complicated than it needs to be.
Apparently this clip was cut from Fox News. He’s probably too conservative or libertarian - or whatever - for me, but I just love it every time he talks.
I might have already posted about this before… I know Parker has said something similar.
I think the media should agree on a no-name policy whenever there is a school or mall shooting (or something of the same nature). The identity of the shooter should be kept completely secret from everyone who doesn’t need to know. There is a certain kind of fame attached to the people who go on these rampages. The guy who killed eight people in a mall the other day said in a note of apology, “at least I’ll be famous.”
I think the media should start sending the message, “if you do this kind of thing you will not be famous - your name will not be mentioned in any paper or on any news station. In fact, we will provide as little coverage as possible about what happened.”
Maybe there would be more downsides to such an approach than I realize, and you certainly can’t mandate this kind of thing - that would be a pretty big infringement on freedom of speech. Perhaps there could be some kind of universal agreement among all media producers.
I don’t know… I just think that if there weren’t any coverage, fewer people would shoot up schools or malls for the attention of it.
I think it is important that we officially call the slaughter of up to one million Armenians in the early 20th century a genocide. Just about everyone already calls it the Armenian Genocide already. Many are asking Turkey to recognize it as such, which makes them unhappy. They have threatened to remove their support for the U.S. from the war in Iraq.
Some would say it doesn’t matter much whether we make it official, but I think it does. When we name something for what it is, it becomes more real, more visible. And in the case of something that is ugly, it becomes truly offensive. And when that happens we’re forced to own up to the darkness inside of us, inside of our humanness. It keeps us aware of ourselves and helps prevent repeat mistakes.
I’d like to see our country dismantle its nuclear arsenal - entirely - and vow never to make or use nuclear weapons again.
What’s the main reason for keeping them? Well, it’s a huge leverage point. If you nuke us or piss us off enough, we can literally wipe your country off the face of the planet. “Pssst! Don’t nuke the U.S.!” But I don’t believe our WMD capabilities are actually as persuasive as we might think. Having nukes doesn’t actually make us safer. Missiles sitting in a warehouse don’t do anything, and intimidation can only go so far.
I’ve tried to think of scenarios where it might become desirable or necessary to use nukes in the interest of preserving America. Such scenarios certainly exist, and could maybe happen.
Then there’s Jesus and the Good News. If I am a Christian, then preserving America, democracy, even (dare I say it!) freedom must take a back seat to living out the Gospel. Killing, even when justified or noble, is always ugly. Nuclear weapons are something I can’t support.
“But nuclear disarmament won’t work - it won’t create peace, and it won’t encourage other countries to do the same.” Maybe, but God asks me to care more about peace then about what works. Whether it is effective is irrelevant - it is the way of the cross, and I am called to follow.
Is America a Christian nation, and therefore compelled to disarm it’s nuclear weapons in light of the Gospel? No, actually. But I feel compelled to push for it, and I believe the Church must push for it.
There is a case before the Supreme Court right now about whether the second amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, or whether it only guarantees that a state can maintain an armed militia. If the justices rule in favor of the individual’s rights, then many anti-gun laws in states throughout the country will have to be repealed. If it’s the other way around, the door is open for much more strict laws banning the ownership of firearms.
I think that the second amendment protects both rights mentioned above, but it’s clear that the intention is to provide protection for the security of the state. If they rule that it does not refer to individual gun ownership, I think they would still have to allow people to own guns so long as they become official members of the state militia. That doesn’t seem like a bad idea, actually.
