Pro-Family

From Contributor Bill

I was watching the Daily Show with my spouse when Scott Liveley with Defend the Family was featured. They showed him saying crazy things about gay people and saying they weren't morally fit to be in the military and that Hitler used gays in the military due to this lack of morality. My spouse told me that this was a made up group and that it wasn't true, and it made me wonder.

I went to the website for Defend the Family and it exists. There is a comment abount the Daily Show which says the interview was "edited beyond recognition".

I did look to see what the group believes and found the question What do we mean by "pro-family"? Here is the quote:
We believe that the natural family was created by God to be the starting place and model for all human relationships. The natural family is one man and one woman and their children by birth or adoption, or the surviving remnant thereof. Marriage is God's institution to protect the natural family from forces such as promiscuity which would otherwise destroy it. To be pro-family is to actively promote and protect the natural family as the foundation of human society and culture.
I'm not sure Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar meet this definition very well and I don't see the group putting down the patriarch's in the Old Testament. In fact, I see lots of plural marriages and concubines when I read. While Adam and Eve meet this definition I'm not sure many other Old Testament families meet this definition.

As for today, I have met and come to know many non traditional families and have found them to be strong; exhibiting love, support, maturity and and other the other attributes I associate with committed families. I believe that strong families are defined by the people in them, often strengthened by a faith in God.

I don't know what actions Defend the Family takes to strengthen families. This example of belief seems to weaken families.

A Real Question

How does one work for justice without being constantly angered by the lack of justice?

During election years, I find myself getting so wrapped up in the issues of the day, that I periodically have to take a break. When the source of my frustration was purely the horse race aspect of politics--is my party winning or loosing/being treated fairly or poorly by the news--just a news break was fine. But as my interface with politics becomes more and more about justice, I do not think pure detachment is a good enough answer. (At least not for an adherent to Western religion.) So, what do I need to do?

Figured it Out

Here is another poem. This one from Dr. Robert Howard, one of the many ordained ministers associated with Chalice Christian Church.

In light of the poem, I offer this question: Is peace a justice issue?

You'll need to click on the image, like with the music.

Love,
JimII

Perception of Gay Marriage

When Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock spoke at Chalice, I was struck to realize just how little the Bible said about marriage. I don't mean gay marriage; I mean marriage, in general. If you think about it, the Love Chapter has nothing to do with the romantic love between two people. There's the Wedding at Cana but, frankly, the wedding is guide of just a literary device in the story. It isn't a story about marriage.

Question: Is the absence of Biblical treatment of marriage partly to blame for the enormous variety of opinions on the topic from community to community?

Data

Believe Out Loud Music

Well, it appears this is the best I can do until I hear back from Mr. Lohman. Perhaps those interested in the music can enlarge their screens, or copy this into a program that you can blow it up or something.

UPDATE: Click on the images to get a legible view. Yeah!

Judge says no to voters saying no to a judge saying no . . .

In California today a federal judge struck down Prop. 8. CNN story here.

This means that a judge rejected the voter approved initiative, which rejected an early court ruling, which rejected California law, which rejected the recognition of the marriage between two people of the same sex.

There are subtle legal issues to discuss, but not to discuss here. What I'd like to raise here is a concern with this type of decisions. I think the courts provide a strong mechanism for ensuring civil rights are upheld, but I think they are a poor vehicle for establishing civil rights. Rather, I think public opinion must be swayed. The tug of war nature of litigation, as so well illustrated in this controversy, is a limitation on the power of litigation to cause change.

What do others think; especially those who saw Brown & Roe change the political landscape?

A Question

I have a poem & a hymn that I will post as soon as I figure out the formatting issues. Blogger does not let give you as much control over spacing as I would like.


In the meantime, consider the following question regarding the major social justice issues of our time: gay rights and immigrant rights.

Assumption: The Hebrew Scriptures require harsh treatment of gays, but gentle treatment of aliens. You can tweak these, obviously. The scriptures actually address gay sex, and only between men. Likewise, the discussion of aliens in our land doesn't touch on documented versus undocumented immigrants. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to say the Bible is kind to immigrants and unkind to GLBT folks.

Question: Are you required to be consistent in how you treat these scriptures in analyzing these issues? If you say the scriptures on gays dictate the social policy on gays for which you advocate, must the scriptures on aliens dictate the social policy on immigrants for which you advocate? Put another way, if you relegate the scripture on gays as "merely" cultural, must you treat the scriptures on aliens similarly?