Quote:
Originally Posted by bfrazz1  It seems to me that the Founding Fathers of this country were specifically trying to protect the rights of those who had unpopular opinions and beliefs. They tried especially hard to limit the influence of religion on lawmaking, going to extraordinary lengths to prevent any religious viewpoint from being fostered upon any particular individual or group. It strikes me that most fervent dissent regarding gay marriage comes from folks who have a strong dogmatic foundation, usually in Christian theology.
Having spent a good portion of my life in the Arts, I have developed friendships with a number of gay people and even went into a business partnership with a lesbian at one point. As long as the members of the gay community respected my heterosexuality, I respected their homosexuality. What they did behind closed doors mattered not and I see no reason why those in committed relationships should not enjoy the advantages or endure the hardships inherent in a legally recognized union like marriage. When my gay business partner cheated on her supposed life-mate I found it just as repulsive as when this kind of thing is done by my heterosexual acquaintances, just as the strong points of their relationship were viewed as positive and uplifting.
I often wonder, why are the anti-gay marriage people are so intolerant and afraid? The Christian Rightists are appalled when someone goes negative about them, yet they seem to be the first people to find others intolerable and appalling. Yet isn't this exactly the opposite of the teachings of Christ? |
It's a good point about the founding fathers and religion, but I don't think it was just to protect against religion but to protect religion. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Too often it seems that second part is forgotten, and people act like Congress should forbid religion from having anything to do with politics. It is of course absurd that one's religion shouldn't influence their political beliefs. The word for one whose belief does not extend to all aspects of their life is 'hypocrite.'
There can be no establishment made of religion itself for then other religions would be discriminated against, but of course people should vote and act politically according to their religious views and beliefs. Lincoln, Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and John Adams were several who clearly stated their religious convictions and how their political behaviors were influenced by them.
It is another good point about whether Christians are intolerant in claiming there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, and one I intend to address. However, Jesus Himself did not claim to be tolerant. He was always telling people about morality and that they needed to repent or else perish.
He called the Pharisees hypocrites. He didn't excuse the lifestyle of the adulteress, He forgave her and told her to "go and sin no more." He clearly stated that divorce is wrong for any reason other than adultery, and repeated the 10 commandments as God's moral standard.
The wrong comes not in saying lifestyles are wrong, but in using that to single out others as more evil, rather than pointing out we are all equally guilty before God. However, this issue is not about saying homosexuals are any worse than anyone else, but about simply asserting a moral definition of marriage for our nation.
To put it simply, there is a difference between intolerant of PEOPLE and of being intolerant of EVIL as a whole. There is a difference between condemning someone and just saying there is absolute right and wrong.
Jesus and the Bible clearly say some things are right and some are wrong. We all form are own ideas and opinions about what's right and wrong. It's not the judgment of what's right and wrong, but judging others as a judge, to say they are worse than other people so as to put them down and condemn them.
There's an excellent article that I like on the subject.
As quoted from:
Power to Change » Do all religions lead to God? Quote:
|
Some people might question this, saying it is intolerant to think only one religion has things right. But this response shows a misunderstanding of what intolerance really is. Intolerance comes from the word “tolerate.” To tolerate means to allow something, such as a belief, to exist even though we don’t like it or agree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true. Therefore, we can hold that one view is true or better than other views without being intolerant. If we were truly intolerant, we would seek to silence other points of view. But merely engaging in persuasive conversation with someone you disagree with is not intolerance. We show more respect for each other when we take our religious claims seriously than when we clothe them in a patronizing cloak of relativism.
|