To Quote or Not To Quote: When Is It WRONG To Quote The Bible?

Salisbury University students found out yesterday. Kudos for the dean who accepted the athiests' right to free speech. 

Something's Still Phishy in Philly

No news reports about John Joe Thomas and his "The Bible told me so" confession. Methinks something is missing in this case and it isn't the brains of the defendant. 

Speculation is abounding in this case and unless Thomas' defense or the prosecution come up with more facts or testimonies, angry villagers with torches will be storming the Upper Darby jail house. I'll admit that I'm hooked as well: there's got to be more substance than what everyone else has been given. Whether Thomas really hears "voices" or not may not be as important as the presence of a third party telling Thomas that gays should be stoned to death. Or telling Thomas that he should "plead the Bible."

Stoning The "Homo To Death"

Will we see more facts emerge in this bizarre case? How will the Christian Right react? (OK, predictable: "So he's insane - it's not our fault!"). Will John Joe Thomas' parents shed more light on the murder? Who will defend him? What will be the plea? Will a third party emerge? Yeah, kids, it's like a soap opera. 

Throw REAL Sodom and Gomorrah Brimstone at Queers!!

  It's pricey, but it's worth it!!

Yes, they're selling this kind of stuff now. Somehow I don't think it will be displayed in the LGBT History Museum. 

Robertson Redux: Listen Kid, I Love You Even Though You're An Abomination!

It's a wonder that gay Americans are as patient as they are with some of these Religious Right wingers 

- Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks

Patient? Sorry Cenk, not me.  

I have a Google Blog Alert for Pat Robertson giving me the latest news and comments about our illustrious Religious Right Leader, so I was surprised to see that blog roundup smny.net was running comments on a piece that occurred 1 year ago. Then I read the comments. Take two:

Pat Robertson makes me feel ashamed of being a human being

and the more pertinent:

WOW The sad part is people believe this sh*t.

THE SAD PART

Asking for Pat Robertson's advice is like asking a parrot for directions to the nearest hospital: you might get an answer, just not the one you need right now.  Of course, Robertson is always full of it. Advice, that is. Ask me what else he's full of some other time. His book, Bring It On, is chock full of wisdom and knowledge no Christian household should be without. 

For example:

Just what is Islam and why do those people hate Americans so much?

Muhammad claimed to have had a series of dreams and visions in which a being he called "Allah," who was the moon god among the deities in Mecca, a city in Saudi Arabia where Muhammad's father was the keeper of three hundred sixty stones, including a black stone which was probably a piece of meteor... The moon god (the symbol of Islam is a crescent moon) supposedly appeared to Muhammad and revealed to him the tenets of Islam...The name [Koran] means "recitations," possibly because it was meant to be read aloud, but more likely because it was delivered orally by Muhammad to his friends, who wrote it down.

Huh?? WTF!?! Bring It On is proof that Robertson's senile imagination took hold at least  seven years ago (some say much earlier - about 1988 when he ran for President). For starters,  Islam is an Abrahamic religion and follows closely the precepts of Judaism in that it recognizes Adam, Abraham, Moses and (from Christianity) Jesus. The Jews were known as The People of the Book and the Bible was greatly revered and respected. The history of Muhammad's father is not known. Wherever Robertson got the keeper of the stones bit is anyone's guess. "Allah" is probably derived from Aramaic and means "one, incomparable God." The "moon god" did not appear and reveal secrets to Muhammad, but rather the angel Gabriel did. 

One more important note: reading about the Qu'ran will present a clearer picture of Islam's intents and purposes and will accentuate the similarities between Islam and Christianity, some things Robertson would never want you to know. Today's evangelizing Imam need  only a television camera and a suit to look like they're on a 700 Club of their own.  And after reading the Qu'ran, look to the Old Testament of the Bible, then ask yourself if the Abrahamic religion of Moses is still a "religion of peace."

Of course, even Robertson agrees that some of the questions he answers in his book are somewhat strange, but let's face it, anyone who asks Pat Robertson about anything these days is quite clueless. The man never ceases to amaze people which the broad spectrum of what he doesn't know. At the drop of a hat (or less), Robertson will tell you what's wrong with wearing a tattoo ("it's pagan and ugly") to declaring bankruptcy (it's Christian depending upon the amount).

Robertson never mitigates his tone either. Whether it's making pronouncements about  "Haiti's pact with the devil" or feminism turning women into lesbians and witches,  he never misses a beat. After all, he reasons, he's only the messenger of God and God's demands. And he doesn't care what people think about his advice. There is no quibbling about it. Robertson/God has spoken. 


So in The 700 Club segment in question,  Pat Robertson  took to the airwaves to mete out his sage advice to a mother whose question was:

How should we, as parents of a homosexual son, handle the ongoing challenges facing us such as staying true to our faith and following the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself?" This is very difficult for us. - Teresa.

Robertson then proceeded to question the age of the son - as if he knew what he was talking about and the age would determine his answer (Not!)


Then he pondered the idea of there being "real" or "fake" homosexuals by calling them "so called" homosexuals and trying to distinguish between "homosexuals because of biological problems" and the rest of us, who, in his view were "made homosexuals BECAUSE OF A COACH OR GUIDANCE COUNSELOR, or some other male figure who has abused them." Then came the hard line zinger:  tell him the "truth" because "I love you" and  "the Bible says that this is an abomination before God."  

"I mean if someone is on the way to hell, you have to rescue them." 

Recently, Pat Robertson gave advice to a woman whose husband was constantly flirting with other women. His advice? Make yourself prettier and get over it.

I've read just about every name people have called Pat Robertson and most of them banish him to some remote alternate reality reserved for the inane footnotes of history. The problem therein lies that while we should not listen to what he says, we need to listen to (and monitor) the people who DO listen to what he says.


And while there are some who think that Robertson's just another example of a snake oil salesman falling in love with his own snake oil,  there are too many people in America who touch their TV screens in hopes that Pat Robertson will heal their hemorrhoids. 

Only one? That's still too many. Remember:

WOW The sad part is people believe this sh*t.

Warren: "Uganda Have Heart!" Uganda: "Damn Yankees!"

When Exporting Homophobia Backfires

(14 hours ago) Ugandan mobs call for passing "Kill Gays" bill

Led by religious leaders, Ugandan protesters marched to demand that the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill be passed.

Several hundred people demonstrated in the Ugandan capital Kampala on Tuesday against gays and lesbians, and expressed support for the country’s impending tough anti-homosexual law.

The protesters, led by born-again clerics, cultural leaders, and university undergraduates, marched to the parliament where they presented a petition.

"Ya know, it's like you can help some guys a lot, but when YOU need something, it's like talk to the hand, ya know?"

That's my inner Chicagoland self-assessing the Rick Warren/Uganda situation. While in my inner self, I can look at everything as either black or white, but this new situation with Rick Warren and the upcoming vote for a law that puts harsher punishments on gays in Uganda is so complicated I've had to wade through it as if I were slogging through a swamp.

In terms we mere mortals can understand:

• Rick Warren gains popularity in Uganda by assisting in obtaining AIDS medical supplies and other necessities.
  
• Warren curries favor with Ugandan President Museveni and his wife. He also meets Martin Ssempe whose sole mission in life seems to be the obliteration of evil by killing as many homosexuals as possible. They strike up a friendship and for the next several years, Ssempe is invited to squeak at Warren's Saddleback Church.
• Ssempe, of course, is overwhelmed by the whole package: a multimillion best-seller (second to his own beloved Bible), a megachurch that doesn't look like a church (unless African churches have skateboard parks), respect, prestige and money $.
• Something happens between the two mega-personalities and Ssempe drops out of Warren's radar range.
• The Kampala anti-gay conference begins in March.
• Exodus, International attends the conference then later withdraws from ideologies encompassing the genocide of gays.
• By Sept. 15, an anti-gay bill is circulating the nation. Consequently, news of the draft is leaked out of the country, at which time Rick Warren would have known about it (if not before)
• By Nov. 15, definite sides have formed: Uganda clerics calling for quick passage of the bill, while statesmen are denouncing it. The bill's links to American evangelical groups and politicians prove that those groups are exporting homophobia.
• Nov. 30 - Rick Warren refuses to denounce the bill.
• Dec. 15 -Rick Warren, under pressure, finally delivers "encyclical video" denouncing he bill.Under pressure.
  

Martin Ssempe responds to Rick Warren's denunciation

"As you yourself have said, '..the Bible says evil has to be opposed. Evil has to be stopped. The Bible does not say negotiate with evil. It says stop it. Stop evil'. (12/2007) Since homosexuality is evil, you cannot possibly be against a law that seeks to stop it unless you have misunderstood it."

And in a letter from 20 prominent Uganda pastors:

"We note with sadness the increasing levels of accepting of the evil of homosexuality," they state. "In these increasingly dark days, we encourage you not to give into the temptation to water down what the Bible says so as not to offend people."

The text of the "Kill Gays" bill is HERE.

Now the Uganda Christofascists want an apology from Warren:

Christian Post:

"Your letter has caused great distress and the pastors are demanding that you issue a formal apology for insulting the people of Africa by your very inapropriate (sic) bully use of your church and purpose driven pulpits to coerse us into the 'evil' of Sodomy and Gaymorrah (sic)," the pastors, which include Martin Ssempa, state in a letter emailed to Warren.

From RH Reality Check

Martin Ssempe's letter to Rick Warren:

Africa101: Homosexuality is illegal, unnatural, ungodly and un-African: In Uganda as most of the global South, homosexuality is an “evil and repugnant sexual act” ...

We are harrassed by a massive invasion of rich Europeans and Americans groups who are scorning our traditional African view of marriage and family, bullying and threatening to cut off “aid” if we dont legalise the sins of Sodom and Gommorrah! We are troubled by some members western media which is obsessed with homosexuality.

When you came to Uganda on Thursday, 27 March 2008, and expressed support to the Church of Uganda’s boycott of the pro-homosexual church of England, you stated; “The Church of England is wrong, and I support the Church of Uganda”.

You are further remembered to say, “homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus (its) not a human right. We shall not tolerate this apect at all”.

Let's see Rick Warren gets out of this one! He won't. He'll offer vague platitudes to both sides, but Christianity in America ( as well as humanist/secular groups) and the Christian Right in Africa will look askance at Warren from now on: he will eventually be forgiven, but they will never forget.

"My influence in that nation has been greatly exaggerated by the media."

THIS LAST STATEMENT:

... belies the fact that, according to Rev. Kapya Kaoma (an Anglican pastor from Zambia and the author of a recent report on gays in Africa) Warren has immense influence among Uganda's political élite, and the First Lady. "He eats with them, he knows what goes on, they respect him," said Kaoma in a conference call.

So Rick Warren is now, as they say, between a rock and a hard place. He and the rest of the Christofascist Right gambled on a gullible public in one country and an uninformed public in another. Now they're success in exporting homophobia is coming back to bite them.

Bite hard, Uganda, bite HARD!

The Manhattan Declaration: Hypocrites United

The Christian Right has arrogantly come up with their own Nicene Creed. However, the Nicene Creed only states a belief of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, while the Manhattan Declaration states a whole host of beliefs not the least of which is that the holiest of all actions is hypocrisy. I'm certain that better writers and more intelligent people have attacked it by now as a blathering piece of BFD. So this post is, by its timing, anti-climactic.

But it is this kind of bloviating sanctimoniousness that drives people to respond anyway, because after reading it, one is prompted to react with "Do Something!"

So here is my take, such as it is. Sorry about the length, but when dealing enormous amounts of hot air, it takes an equal length of writing to respond to them.

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages [In other words, they don’t intend to address the topic of pedophile priests or ministers], we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues [Like the onslaught of AIDS?], and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. [And for almost 1000 years, kept them all for themselves.] It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. [American Christians, however, were rather split at the time, weren’t they?] Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. [Of course, Christians allowed Europeans a breather after 782 wars in 800 years – all sanctioned by Christians] And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. [And that, my friends, is the last you will read about women's rights in this polemic] The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class. [Take that, Southern Baptists!]

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination. [Their “devotion to human dignity” skipped 1981 to 1999 simply because people with AIDS were anathema. Period.]

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason [Quite a jump from Scripture to “natural human reason”] (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies: [Well, at least they admit we’re fashionable!] that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image . [This means freedom to be Christian ONLY.]


We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences. to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. [“ecclesial differences” – Why is it that organized religion only bonds together when hey are AGAINST something? They can agree on base generalities like “peace,” but when dogma – the absolute heart of the church – is necessary, they agree to disagree – and hope that the bottom won’t fall out from underneath their congregation’s base.] We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

****

Life
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. [Whether or not they like it, people are paying for abortions through their insurance premiums. The “taxpayer expense” is really a singular jab at Planned Parenthood.] Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. [“Pro-life” is a misnomer. It should be “pro-birth.” Would pro-lifers ever put their money where their mouth is and help to SUPPORT those children after birth? There are still a few “maternity hospitals” left (I was born in one), but they are not adequately supported by any faith-based organizations. One solution: provide a box to check on the taxpayer’s 1040 that states: “I stand pro-life. I want my tax return to benefit (fill in blank with name of legitimate social non-profit) so that a child may be fed, sheltered, clothed and educated according to the standards set by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.” ] Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable.[ No such word, but it has probably been used time and again on “birther”\“teabagger” signs.] As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. [Only recently did Christians value the life of a child born out of wedlock: it was until about 1920 that birth certificates of such children were stamped “illegitimate.”] For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. [Now the conspiracy theories start. This statement is wild supposition of the Pat Robertson kind. And science fiction has absolutely no place in a manifesto such as this.] At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. [This invites a wild analogy: so many of us have our pets “put to sleep” because we don’t want them to suffer anymore. Yet good “Christians” will force our loved ones to suffer and have no say at all about the continuance of their lives.] The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need . and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. [While the incident may have involved another country, I feel I must remind Chuck Colson that the last Magdalene Laundry was closed in the early 1990s. He’s portraying all Christians as self-effacing saints.] Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. [Equating the Bible with reason?] We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. [You won’t do it with “abstinence only” programs.] We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage


The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem. Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. [Including everyone and every culture is totally false: out of 1300 cultures studied, only about 250 were based on one-man-one-woman marriage. The rest were polygamous. And only in the last 300 years or so has the idea of love as a basis for marriage been recognized. Past cultures almost exclusively supported arranged marriages based on money, property and other assets.] Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. [Personal note: I was born in Chicago at St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum and Maternity Hospital and put up for adoption from birth. I was illegitimate. Ann Coulter(geist) has brazenly (and stupidly) characterized and generalized ALL children born out of wedlock as drug addicts and criminals. I must be the odd one out.] Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same. [Too little, too late and too lame.]

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. [Tell that to battered wives. One in particular pleaded with Pastor Rick Warren to counsel her after a brutal beating. His answer: divorce is not an option – after all, “he only hit you once. Only after you can prove that he’s beating you consistently, after counseling, then you should just leave him. But no divorce.”] We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. [There's a contradiction in there somewhere.] In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; [In a struggle to see their POV, I have come up numerous times frustrated and empty-handed as far as any kind of believability: their past behavior towards gays and lesbians shows them to have no respect and certainly no compassion. The Age of AIDS (1982-2002 – approx.) proved what harm hypocritical self-righteousness can do. True compassion existed only in pockets of the country and AIDS agencies were all (gasp!) secular.] and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. [This is, at best, disingenuous. The most radical idea Christ espoused was to love your enemies. He knew that this went against human nature. Most Christian preachers know that this sentiment will never be taken to heart, but they spout it occasionally to look benevolent.] For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation. [This is a grand attempt to make the institution of marriage holy, untouchable and mystical beyond which we mortals can comprehend. The union of two people in love and who fervently attempt to sustain that union with physical and emotional gestures are totally discounted because in the mind of a “true believer” the two people MUST be of the opposite sex and have the intention at all times of procreation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is also a sinner.]

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential. [To insinuate that a minority such a gays is “powerful and influential” is absurd: can societal outcasts – deemed outcasts because they are sinners – be “powerful and influential? And to infer that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy and incest is sanctimonious demonizing.] No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. [Religious liberty is never compromised if that liberty does not demand that everyone else must have the same frame of mind.] Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. [Which rights would he rather abuse, the parent or child? Children have an intrinsic right to know that other philosophies and cultures exist and exactly what they are. If they are not given the entire spectrum of beliefs, they unnecessarily doomed to become bigots.] Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”) that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. [Mr. Colson assumes to speak for the rest of Christendom and that is a grave mistake. He is authorized to speak only for the ones who have signed the Declaration.] How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well. [Yet we are compelled to embrace Christianity every day in every way: “Our forefathers were Christian.” “America is a Christian nation!” “Secularists are atheists!” The Christian religion is the ONLY worthwhile religion” “I knew my God was better than his god.” “Keep the Christ in Christmas"]

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard [ “Persecution!!”] of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. [Maybe the government has to dictate morality because “righteous” people WOULD discriminate, fire and ruin the lives of people in the name of “conscience.”] After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here. [Do Biblical “norms” include the insulting and incendiary speeches of Fred Phelps?]

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of. Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny. [This assumes that Christians are always “civil”]

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. [That is why Christian clergy are calling for the death of the President.] We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. [One could create a wild “slippery slope” from this: not biding by the law of non-discrimination against gays could eventually lead to “Kill a Queer for Christ.” Seriously, this manifesto could validate “birthers” and “teabaggers.”] There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. [Proselytizing your version of the truth is one thing, while pummeling people with the Bible, cherry-picked verse by cherry-picked verse is another.] We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Thus this “Declaration” ends leading us towards a puzzling but crucial question:

Who gets to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?