So I dreamt that I was on a talk show. The subject was -- big surprise -- marriage equality. And I was "up against" a male pastor-type who was giving the "but the Bible says" argument.The host turned to me and said, "Reverend Russell, isn't it true that the Bible condemns homosexuality?"
And I -- in my dream -- said,
"What is true is that you can find passages in the Bible that condemn some homosexual practices -- and it is true that some people interpret those to say that God condemns homosexuals."
"What is also true is that you can find passages in the Bible that tell slaves to obey their masters -- and it is true that those passages have been interpreted by some to say that God supports slavery."
"But what this conversation today is about is not who interprets the Bible how, but whether 51% of the electorate has the right to take rights away from other Californians because of how they read the Bible. What if in the next election 51% of the voters were convinced to vote to re-institute slavery because "the Bible says ..." Is that the kind of California you want to live in?
And then I woke up.
Yes, I need to get out more. But -- for the record -- I think it's a pretty good argument.
14 comments:
That is amazing! Why don't I formulate concise and relevant arguments in my sleep? And then remember them in the morning? It would really make this disseration thing a lot easier.
The last dream I remember having involved me, my mother,and my boyfriend trying to keep zombies from eating us by offering to by them drinks at a bar (I wish this was a joke but it is not. My mind is scary).
It's a wonderful argument, of course. Thanks for sharing this with us.
To add to what God gave you in your dream: it's also the case that the Bible can be interpreted as prohibiting divorce (except in the case of infidelity) and remarriage (probably in all cases). Imagine 51% of the population voting to ban divorce for everyone "because the Bible says...."
"During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abrahan, and with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them."
I don't see God condoning slavery do you?
"The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, wood -- idols that cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts." Rev. 9
God disapproves of sexual immoratlity -- if one insists on continuing in sin, God will, eventually, condemn the person that is unrepentent. But God is merciful and will give as many chances as he possibly can!(A body destined for ressurection should not be used for immorality.)
If you claim Jesus Christ, You are not your own, you were bought at a price, therefore Honor God with your body. God says..."Flee from sexual immorality!
Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?...."Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and wil not be able to." LK 13.
'Narrow door' -- means, get rid of the 1 thing your flesh loves most.
"What if in the next election 51% of the voters were convinced to vote to re-institute slavery because "the Bible says ...""
They would run into a little problem with the thirteenth amendment to the federal constitution, which overrides California law.
The states cannot contract federal constitutional civil rights standards, but they may expand them. The California Supreme Court did so, and the electorate amended the constitution, which the California Supreme Court then had to obey.
If, as a new lawsuit contends, such acts contravene the federal constitution, federal law will override California law. If not, then California will have to expand such rights by changing its constitution back--which in California is apparently crazily easy to do.
So, no, the electorate can't reinstate slavery, by any margin.
It -is- a wonderful argument! And just imagine what would happen if California (or any other state) were to pass a law obeying the injunction not to allow clothing from different kind of fibers mixed together? Consternation! followed by delight within the clothing industry! Of course, I guess it would be necessary to spell out the implication that not everything in the Bible is equally important or equally helpful. Some folks seem to miss this, even after a cogent argument. Oh wait, I live in the South....
I agree with Katie, what a well articulated and relevant dream. Mine tend to be abstract and rather irrelevant, although they seldom involve zombies.
I do like that argument though... its similar to what Bishop Sutten of MD argued at Lambeth, with out the California part
LG ... once again:
Entitled to your perspective on what God intends. Not entitled to write your perspective into our constitution.
And, BTW ... you kind of make my point. Because OBVIOUSLY God does not support slavery ... but that didn't keep generations of preachers and politicians from using the Bible to support oppression. (My rector heard sermons as a young man in south Georgia from preachers declaring "God is a Segregationist.")
When we don't look at passages in isolation ... when look at the whole narrative of our scriptural inheritance ... there are those who see not judgment but justice ... not exclusion but inclusion ... not obsession with other people's genital activity but commitment to loving neighbor as self and partnering with God in turning the human race into the human family.
LG,
Mother Susan did a fine job of pointing out--again--the point of her argument: that an interpretation of the Bible can't be made into the law of the land. We're not a theocracy.
But I will respond to your slavery argument to illustrate the problem of selective proof-texting:
"During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abrahan, and with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them."
I don't see God condoning slavery do you?
I see God condemning the enslavement of the Chosen People. This isn't a scripture about slavery in general.
Have a look at Leviticus 25:44-45. This is a text that "Bible-believing" Christians quoted to justify slavery. Here, God does condone slavery, so long as the enslaved people are non-Israelites.
So, LG, sexual orientation = morality? Really? A monogamous gay couple who committed their lives to each other in 1970 and are still together is immoral, but married heterosexuals, such as, for example, John Ensign, Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are, by definition, moral? Since so many conservatives still don’t recognize the continuum of sexual orientation, is it any wonder that the writers of the Bible, thousands of years ago, didn’t either?
On an unrelated note, just what will a “body destined for resurrection” look like, I wonder? Will we need our dentures, glasses, hearing aids, canes, walkers and toupees? Will we look as we looked on the day of our death? Or how we looked at age 18? Or 42? Or 25? Would our parents also be 25? And their parents? Are those who choose cremation out of luck entirely?
I don't condone sexual immorality either. That has nothing to do with my faithful, monogamous, loving marriage.
I am TIRED of being insulted like a dog. Oh, wait, I bet the conservatives have no problem with blessing dogs.
Well -- IMHO (probably not H enuf -- need to pray about that) I think Susan has really neat and theologically sound dreams. My first thought was that I wish I had profound dreams -- as recently named treasurer of my parish, I keep having dreams about correcting journal entries. One does not awake satisfied from these.
A monogamous gay couple who committed their lives to each other in 1970 and are still together is immoral, but married heterosexuals, such as, for example, John Ensign, Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are, by definition, moral?
It's not an either/or situation. Both, for different reasons, are immoral.
As far as what people can or cannot do; in California the law permits 51% of the population to say "No, the State Supreme Court Justices were wrong, 'x' is not a fundamental right." But as has been pointed out, it does not allow them to say that the Federal Constitution is wrong.
Put another way, it allows them to say that race and homosexual behavior are two different things instead of being equated as having the same property of being part of one's fundamental being.
As far as WHY those 51% of people choose to do so, it is immaterial as to whether they base it on their reading of the Chsistian Scriptures, the Judaic Scriptures, the Islamic scriptures, or any other set of scriptures, or whether they base it on science or their understanding of psychology or just a basic "yuck" factor. They have a right to do so. People have not just a right but a responsibility to consider everything that forms their conscience and moral system when making such a decision.
If the influence of Christianity were removed from the formation of one's moral sense and thus from one's judgement on what our laws should be like, we would have a pretty awful set of laws.
Oh, spare me the argument that atheists are immoral.
And spare me the insults, please. I'm very tired of self-satisfied "Christians" calling ME immoral and worse. Tell me, who gets to decide?
yes, the california constitution now gives the voters the right to remove rights from any group. ANY group--even if defined as a suspect class. Be careful how self-satisfied you are, RonF. Most of us belong to multiple minority groups from biology or culture or religion. I'm looking forward to the opportunity on voting on other people's marriages next. What do you think...redheads or lefties, first?
They tyranny of mob rule is alive and well and living in California. Pink triangles next, if the H8 groups have their way.
NOw THAT is immoral.
Post a Comment